THE    DEAN'S    ENGLISH. 


"  He  who  cannot  express  his  thoughts  correctly  in 
his  own  language,  is  not  likely  to  obtain  credit  for 
much  knowledge  of  any  other ;  nor  will  an  ill-spelt, 
ungrammatical  letter  impress  anyone  with  the  idea 
that  the  writer  of  it  is  an  '  educated '  man ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Englishman  whose  linguistic 
acquirements  do  not  extend  beyond  the  language  of 
Shakspeare,  but  who  knows  that  thoroughly  and 
can  wield  it  well,  possesses  an  instrument  with  which 
he  may  fight  his  way  to  almost  any  position  he  may 
choose  to  aspire  to,  whether  he  turn  his  thoughts  to 
poetry  or  to  politics,  to  literature  or  to  commerce." — 
The  Reader,  January  28,  1865. 


THE 


DEAN'S  ENGLISH 

Jl  Cri&isra  m  i\t  gm  at  €mmm's  « ssjtp 

ON   THK 

QUEEN'S  ENGLISH. 
G.'  WASHINGTON   MOON, 

FELLOW    OF    THE    ROYAL    SOCIETT   OF    LITERATURE. 


(loitrilj  (6i)iiroii. 


ALEXANDER  STRAPIAN  &   CO.,  PUBLISHERS, 
139  GRAND  STREET,  NEW- YORK. 


^»p- 


^ 


R 


[^ 


"Literature,  if  it  is  to  flourish,  must  have  a 
standard  of  taste  built  up,  which  shall  expand  to 
meet  new  forms  of  excellence,  but  which  shall  pre- 
serve that  which  is  excellent  in  old  forms,  and  shall 
serve  as  a  guide  to  the  rejection  of  whatever  is  bad, 
pretentious,  and  artificial;  and  it  is  the  business  of 
critics  to  see  that  this  standard  is  built  up  and  main- 
tained."— Saturday  Review. 


t 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FOURTH  EDITION. 


I  HA  YE  been  asked  not  to  publish  another 
edition  of  this  work ;  but  I  do  not  think 
I  should  be  benefiting  the  cause  of  lite- 
rature by  complying  with  that  request. 
"  The  care  of  the  national  language^'*  says 
Schlegel,  "  is  at  all  times  a  sacred  trust. 
"  Every  man  of  education  should  maJce  it 
"  the  object  of  his  unceasing  concern  to  pre- 
"  serve  his  language  pure  "/  and  I  consider 
that  I  am  doing  only  my  duty  in  that 
respect,  when  I  re-issue  this  work,  which, 
by  exposing  the  errors  of  one  of  exalted 
position  and  reputed  learning,  makes  a 


m;22411?6 


PREFACE. 

"light  in  the  church"  serve  as  a  beacon 
to  all  around. 

I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
in  publishing  these  criticisms  I  have  not 
been  actuated  by  any  feeling  of  ill-will 
towards  the  Dean  of  Canterbury.  I  object 
not  to  the  man,  but  to  the  man's  language  ; 
it  is  faulty  in  the  extreme ;  and  since  the 
faults  of  teachers,  if  suffered  to  pass  un- 
reproved,  soon  become  the  teachers  of 
faults,  it  was  necessary  that  some  one 
should  take  upon  himself  the  task  of 
'■^  demonstrating ''^  as  '•Tlie  Edinhurgh  Me- 
'vieio '  said, "  that  while  the  Dean  undertook 
"  to  instruct  others^  he  teas  himself  but  a 
"  castaway  in  ^natters  of  grammar  ".  As 
a  fellow  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Litera- 
ture, one  of  the  objects  of  which  is  "to 
"  preserve  the  purity  of  the  English  lan- 
guage", I  took  upon  myself  the  demon- 
stration.   How  far  I  have  succeeded,  each 


PREFACE.  vii 

individual  reader  will  determine  for  him- 
self; but  the  rapid  sale  of  three  editions 
of  '  The  Dearies  English  \  and  the  demand 
for  a  fourth,  give  very  flattering  evidence 
that,  by  the  public  generally,  the  work 
has  been  favourably  received. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  last  edition 
of  *  The  DearCs  English ',  the  Dean  has 
brought  out  the  secoiid  edition  of  '  The 
'' Qiieenh  English\  One  circumstance,  in 
•connexion  with  that,  is  worthy  of  remark. 
In  '•Good  Words''  the  Dean  said  to  his 
readers, — "  J7ie  less  you  turn  your  words 
"  right  or  left  to  observe  Mr.  Moori^s  rides^ 
"  the  better ".  It  will  provoke  a  smile  on 
the  face  of  the  reader  of  these  pages  to 
be  told,  that  the  Dean  himself,  although 
he  gives  this  advice  to  others,  has  altered 
and  struck  out,  altogether  not  fewer  than 
eight-and-twenty  passages  which  I  had 
condemned  as  faulty.     For  the  entertain- 


PREFACE. 

ment  of  the  curious  in  such  matters,  I 
have  given,  in  parallel  columns  in  this 
edition,  the  sentences  as  originally  pub- 
lished in  ''Good  Words\  and  condemned 
in  '  The  DearCs  English'' ;  and  the  altered 
sentences  as  they  now  appear  in  the 
Dean's  second  edition  of  his  ^Queen's 
'•English  \ 

The  Dean's  book  contains  much  valu- 
able information,  collected  from  various 
sources ;  but  it  is  blended  with  so  very 
much  that  would  be  really  injurious  to 
the  student  of  literature,  that  the  work 
can  never  safely  be  recommended  for  his 
guidance.  The  style,  too,  in  which  it  is 
written,  is  so  hopelessly  bad,  that  no 
amount  of  alteration  could  obtain  for  it 
the  praise  of  being  a  model  for  chasteness 
and  elegance  of  expression.  We  still  read 
in  it,  of  persons  making  "  a  precious  mess  " 
of  their  work!    and   expletives,   we  are 


PREFACE. 

informed,  serve  to  ^''grease  the  wheels  of 
^^talh'^^!  Improvements,  it  is  true,  have 
been  made  in  some  of  the  paragraphs ;  a 
man  is  no  longer  spoken  of  by  the  slang 
phrase  "a^  individuaV ;  but  the  Dean  is 
so  strangely  forgetful  of  the  courtesy  due 
to  women,  that  he  uses,  respecting  them, 
the  most  debasing  of  all  slang  phrases. 
He  speaks  of  "  soyne  of  the  European 
'•'' rulers'''' ;  [there  are  but  two  to  whom  the 
Dean's  words  can  refer ; — our  own  Sove- 
reign Lady,  and  the  Queen  of  Spain ;]  and 
he  describes  these  by  an  epithet  which  is 
equally  applicable  to  dogs ! — they  are 
'''females'"  ! 

Surely,  after  this,  it  will  be  only  modest 
of  the  Dean  to  retire  from  the  office  of 
lecturer  on  the  Queen's  English;  and,  if 
his  good  sense  has  not  utterly  left  him, 
he  will  wisely  reflect  on  the  folly  of  at- 
tracting attention  to  a  style  of  writing 


PREFACE. 

"  which  ",  as  Junius  said  of  the  character 
of  Sir  William  Draper,  '-'"'mil  07ily  pass 
"  without  censure  lohen  it  parses  without 
"  ohservation  ". 

London^  March^  1865. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  THIRD  EDITION. 


The  issue  of  a  second  edition  of  these 
letters  afforded  me  an  opportunity  for 
noticing  certain  explanations  of  my  oppo- 
nent, the  Dean  of  Canterbmy,  and  for 
extending  my  criticisms  to  his  '  JPlea  for 
'  the  Queen'' s  English^  iVb.  Ill  \ 

I  resumed  the  subject  in  perfect  con- 
fidence that  he,  who  in  the  recent  edition 
of  his  essays  on  the  Queen's  English  had 
honoured  me  with  his  expressions  of 
friendship,  and  had  thought  it  quite  con- 
sistent with  friendshi])  that  he  should 
combat  my  objections,  and  maintain  and 


PREFACE. 

defend  his  own  opinions,  would  not  refuse 
me  a  right  which  he  claimed  for  him- 
self 

I  did  not  extend  my.  criticisms  to  his 
recently  published  volume  '  TJie  Queen^s 
'•EnglisK ;  but,  taking  up  the  subject  where 
I  had  left  off,  I  continued  my  strictures 
on  the  essays  as  they  originally  appeared 
in  *  Good  Words  \ 

The  reader  is  doubtless  aware  that,  "  in 
"a  considerably  altered  form",  the  said 
essays  were  subsequently  "presented  to 
"  the  public  ".  In  that  volume  some  of 
the  passages  which  I  had  criticised 
were  defended;  others  were,  very  pru- 
dently, omitted;  and  many  more  were 
"  considerably  altered "  ;  but  sentences 
"  altered  "  by  my  opponent  are  not  always 
improved.  The  following  one  has  gone 
through  the  process  ; — "  I  used  the  word 
"in  an  unusual  sense,  but  at  the  same 


PREFACE. 
"time  one  fully  sanctioned  by  usage.''^ 
This  needs  no  comment.  The  Dean 
changed  the  structm-e  of  that  passage 
also,  where,  between  the  pronoun  "it" 
and  the  noun  "  habit "  to  which  it  refers, 
cight-and-twenty  substantives  intervene. 
"But",  it  has  been  remarked,  "in  alter- 
"  ing  this  passage  he  opened  his  armour 
"in  such  a  way  as  to  give  the  critic  a 
"  most  tempting  opportunity  for  inflicting 
"  another  gash  on  his  somewhat  careless 
"  opponent."  In  '  Good  Words '  the  Dean 
wrote, — "  You  perhaps  have  heard  of  the 
"  barber  who,  while  operating  on  a  gentle- 
"  man,  expressed  his  opinion,  that,  after  all, 
"the  cholera  was  in  the/ia^>."  As  "altered", 
the  sentence  runs  thus, — "We  remember  in 
"  Punch  the  barber  who,  while  operating", 
&c.  This,  of  course,  suggests  the  idea 
that  Punchy  besides  being  a  wit,  and  a 
satirist,  is  also  a  barber,  and  that  he  not 


PREFACE. 
only  operates  upon  human  consciences  but 
also  upon  human  chins !  The  Dean  will 
very  likely  put  in  his  irresistible  plea, — 
"  We  do  not  write  for  idiots"  ;  but,  seeing 
he  is  always  trying  to  make  us  believe 
that  the  style  he  advocates  is  one  pre- 
eminent for  its  direct  and  simple  clearness, 
he  should  so  write  that  it  would  be  almost 
impossible  to  misunderstand  him*.  Had 
he  made  but  the  most  trifling  alteration 
in  his  sentence,  no  other  meaning,  than 
that  which  he  wished  to  express,  would 
have  been  suggested.  Why,  for  example, 
did  he  not  write, — "  We  remember  read- 
"  ing  in  Pimch,  of  the  barber  who,"  &c.  ? 
This  would  have  been  much  more  per- 
spicuous. 

The  Dean  thought  it  advisable  to 
change  the  name  also  of  his  work.  It  was 
no  longer  ''A  Plea  for  the  Queeii^s  English  \ 
but  *  The  Queeii's  English '.     This  alter- 


PREFACE. 

ation  compelled  me  to  give  up  the 
title  under  which  the  first  of  these  letters 
appeared,  namely,  '  A  Defence  of  the 
'  Queen's  English  'y  lest,  by  still  retaining 
that  title,  it  should  seem,  to  those  persons 
who  are  unacquainted  with  the  controversy, 
to  imply  that  I  had  actually  written  a 
defence  of  my  opponent's  book — a  defence 
of  '  The  Queen'' s  English  '  / 

It  is  with  sincere  pleasure  that  I  record 
my  acceptance  of  Dr.  Alford's  explanation 
respecting  the  objectionable  epithets  con- 
tained in  his  reply  to  my  first  letter, — 
they  were  not  intended  for  me,  but  for 
some  hypothetical  person. — I  request  the 
reader  will  receive  my  remarks  on  the 
said  epithets  as  intended  for  some  hy- 
pothetical Dean. 

Since  those  remarks  were  published  I 
have  had  the  honour  of  becoming  person- 
ally acquainted  with  my  opponent;   and 


PREFACE. 

those  who  enjoy  the  privilege  of  his  society 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  believing,  that 
I  sincerely  respect  him  as  a  man,  al- 
though I  cannot  think  very  highly  of 
him   as   an  English   scholar. 

Lo7idon^  October^  1864. 


CONTENTS. 


ADJECTIVES. 

PAGE 

"  A  decided  weak  point ",  or  "  A  decidedly 

weak  point"  .  .  .  .  .53 
"Not  a  strict  neuter-substantive,"  or  "  Not 

strictly  a  neuter-substantive "  .  56, 132 
"  Speak  no  coarser  than  usual ",  or  "  Speak 

no<  more  coarse/y  than  usual "      .  55,92 

"  The  words  nearest  connected  ",  or  "  The 

words  most  nearly  connected "  .  .  65 
The  rule  respecting  '■'' first  and  lasV  and 

'•'-  former  and  latter  "  .         .         .         .     150 

ADVERBS. 

Dr.  Blair  on  adverbs  .         .         .         .15 

"Hath  the  Lord  only  spoken  by  Moses?" 

or  "  Hath  the   Lord  spoken  only  by 

Moses?" 81 

"  His  own  use  m  frequently  of  it ",  or  "  His 

own  so  frequent  use  of  it ".  .  .  96 
"  How  nicely  she  looks  ",  or  "  How  nice  she 

looks" 95 

"  It   appears  still  more  plainly ",  or  "  It 

appears  still  more  plain  "  .  .  .95 
"  I  only  bring  forward  some  things  ",  or  "I 

bring  forward  some  things  only'''*  14,  127 
"  They  may  be  correc%  classified  ",  or  "  They 

may  correc/^y  6c  classified  "  .  .113,138 
"  We  merely  speak  of  numbers",  or  "  We 

speak  of  numbers  merely " .        .        .      14 

b  2 


CONTENTS. 
AMBIGUITY. 

PAGB 

Dr.  Campbell  on  constructive  ambiguity  .  23 
Lord  Kames  on  constructive  ambiguity  .  10 
A  back-wood  planted  with  thoughts  .  .  61 
A  cow  that  tossed  about  a  street  .  .  19 
A  man  losing  his  mother  in  the  papers  13,  127 
A  paragraph  of  less  than  ten  lines,  yet  so  am- 
biguously worded  that  it  admits  of  10,240 
different  readings  ...  68,  135 
A  strange  sentence  from  Dean  Swift's  writings  18 
A  witness  "intoxicated  by  the  motion  of  an 

honourable  member "          ...       18 
"Compositors  without  any  mercy "     .         .       12 
"Compositors  without  the  slightest  compunc- 
tion"   11,126 

Expressing  ascntence,orexpressingthemcan- 

ing 64 

Expressing  a  woman  ....       64 

Human  kidneys  in  dogs      .         .  .         .       85 

Intellectual  qualities  of  raiment  .         .       36 

Incongruous  association  of  ideas  13,  (57,  127 

"  I  will  introduce  the  body  of— my  essay  "  1 3,  127 

Obscure  writing 103 

Professors  walking  off  with  dictionaries      60,  134 
"  Sometimes  the  editors /a7/, //-om  their  ig- 

7wrance''^    ......         0 

"The  beaux  painted  their  faces,  an  well  as 

the  ■women'"         .         .         .         .         .19 

"  The  G-reeks  wheeled  about  and  halted,  with 

the  river  071  their  backs''''     ,         .         .21 
"  The  one  rule  of  all  others  "     .         .        T)-!,  131 

COXJUXCTIONS. 

Does  "than"  govern  an  accusative  case?  9-1,146,167 
"  As  well  as  ",  and  "  So  well  as  "  .  .  98 
"TAw[aswellasthat]/a;it"  .  .  110,139 
"Try  awUhink" 168 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

CRITICISM. 

PAGE 

An  extract  from  '■llie  Saturday  Review''     .     176 

ELLIPSIS. 

Brevity  should  be  subordinate  to  perspicuity  108 
"  Quack,  Quack  ?"     "  Bow,  wow "  !    .         .     109 

Unallowable  ellipsis 28 

"  We  call  a  cup-board  a  cubbard,  and  so  of 

many  other  compound  words  "    .        58,  133 

EMPHASIS. 

The  use  of  emphasis  ....       26 

The  misuse  of  emphasis — "And  they  c/ic/  cat "       28 

EXPLETIVES. 

"At  all" 110 

NOUNS. 

Relatives  without  any  nouns  to  which  they 

refer So 

Singular  or  plural 163 

"The  press" — a  collective  noun          .         .  163 

OBSCURITY.     [See  Ambiguity]. 

PERSPICUITY. 

What  is  perspicuity  ?  .         ...       23 

The  most  essential  quality  in  all  writings     .       26 
[See  also  Ambiguity]. 

PREPOSITIONS. 

"  Different  to  ",  or  "  Different  from  "  .  .53 
Errors  in  the  use  of  the  preposition  '\from''  10,  96 
"  In  respect  of",  or  "  With  respect  to  "  .  64 
Not  "five  outs  and  one  in  ",  but  five  ms  and 

one  out 118 

"The  cat  jumped  on  [to]  the  chair"  .  .  44 
"  Treating  an  exception",  or  "  Treating  o/an 

exception"         ....       65, 108 


CONTENTS. 
PRONOUNS. 

PAOK 

Dr.  Campbell  on  pronouns  ....  33 
A  difficulty  of  him      ...  .62 

A  paragraph  with  twenty-eight  nouns  inter- 
vening between  the  pronoun  and  its 

noun 36,  68,  131 

"  As  tall  as  Jiim  ",  *'  As  tall  as  me  "  .  .  148 
"  It  is  /",  or  "  It  is  me      .  53,  143,  156, 158 

Misuse  of  pronouns 34 

"  More  than  7",  or  "  More  than  me  "  94,  146,  147 
"  Such  as  me'\  or  "  Such  as  /"  .  .  158 
"  Than  who  ",  or  "  Than  whom  "  .  147,  168 
The  management  of  pronouns  is  the  test  of  a 

scholar's  mastery  over  the  language      .       32 
The  possessive  pronoun  "  its  "  occurs  only 

once  in  the  Bible        .        .         .        37,  131 
The  date  of  the  introduction  of  "  its''''  into 

the  Bible 78, 137 

"  The  nations  not  so  blest  as  thee  "  .  .148 
The  relation  between  nouns  and  pronouns,the 

great  stumbhng-block  to  most  writers  .       35 

"This "and  "that" 170 

"  Thou  "  and  "  thee  ",  when  used       .  6,126 

William  Cobbett  on  "iiJ"  ....  36 
"IF/wcA  I  do"  ......     169 

PRONUNCIATION. 

The  pronunciation  of  Greek  proper  names  30, 74, 1 30 
Should  the  "A"  in  "/«wi6/e"  be  aspirated  ? 

30,  150,  160 
PUNCTUATION. 

An  error  in  the  sense  occasioned  by  the  inser- 
tion oi  &  comma. 112 

An  error  in  the  sense  occasioned  by  the  m^s- 

jo/acm^r  of  a  comma    .         .         .         .115 

An  error  in  the  sense  occasioned  by  the  omis- 
sion of  a  comma  .        .        .  11,  21, 106,  126 


CONTENTS. 
SENTENCES. 

PAGB 

Dr.  Blair  on  the  construction  of  sentences    .       1 7 
Dr.Campbell  on  the  construction  of  sentences       17 
Lord  Kames  on  the  construction  of  sentences       1 Y 
Other  authorities  on  the  construction  of  sen- 
tences          18 

"Constructing"  a  sentence  and  "construing" 

a  sentence 67 

Examples  of  the  violation  of  the  law  respect- 
ing the  position  of  words  in  a  sentence 

18,  19,  20,  128,  134 

Objectionable  construction  of  sentences       .       65 

"  Squinting  construction  "  .         .         .        21,  112 

The  natural  order  of  constructing  a  sentence       66 

SLANG. 

"  A  female  " 

"  An  individual  " 

"  A  party  " 

"  A  tipple  " 

"  A  trap  " 

"  Come  to  grief" 

SPELLING. 

"  Honor  ",  or  "  Honour  " 
"Odor",  or  "Odour" 
"  Tenor  ",  or  "  Tenour  " 

TAUTOLOGY  AND  TAUTOPHONY. 

"  Abated  the  nuisance  by  enacting  that  the 

Je6a^a6?e  syllable ",  &c.       .         .      118,130 
'■'■Account  for  specimens,  for  which  the  author 

must  not  be  accounted  responsible  "       .     118 
"  A  counter-voW  or  check  on  the  account^. 
From  this  account  of  the  word  it  ap- 
pears", &c. 118 

Five  ins  and  one  out  .  .  .  .118 
Three  ins  following  each  other, — "  in  in  in  "  26 
Other,  otner,  others 118 


.   114, 

138 

.    65, 

135 

172 

172 

, 

172 

28,  129, 

171 

46,  90 

. 

90 

. 

49 

CONTENTS. 
VERBS. 

PAHR 

"  He  flew  upon  me,"  and  "  He  fell  upon  me"  170 
*'  I  ain't  certain  ",  "  I  ain't  going  "  .  .  107 
"  I  need  not  have  troubled  myself"  .  .  59 
"  Stick  no  bills "  .  .  "  .  .  .174 
"  The  next  point  which  I  notice  shall  be",  &c.  62 
"  There  are  three  first  and  [there  are]  one 

last" 57,132 

The  verb  "  to  leave  "  ....     148 

The  verb  "  to  progress "  .  .  .  .  (52 
"  To  the  former  belong  three,  to  the  latter 

[belong]  one"  .  .  .  .  57,  182 
"  Twice  one  is  two  "  or  "  twice  one  are  two  "  1  (iS 
"Would  have  been  broken  to  pieces  or  [would 

have  been]  come  to  grief"  28,  129,  171 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

The  power  of  example  ....  8 
Dr.  Campbell  on  the  formation  of  languages  4 
The  office  of  the  grammarian  and  of  the  critic  5 
The  influence  of  popular  writers  .         .         7 

Throwing  stones 8 

Persuasive  teaching 8 

Mending    their    vmys — "  hiffhicai/s  ",    "  6y- 

roads^\  and  ^^ private-roads^^  .  12,120 
Great  things  which  hang  up  framed  at  railway 

stations 20,  128 

"  Individuals  in  social  intercourse  " 

The  source  of  mistakes 

Odious  and  odorous    . 

Be  courteous     .... 

"  We  do  not  write  for  idiots  "    . 

"A  most  abnormal  elongation  of  the  auricular 

appendages"      .         .         .         .  42,84 

Call  a  spade,  a  spade  ....       42 

Falling  tcp  into  a  depth       ....       42 


20, 

129 

29, 

130 

31 

39 

, 

41 

CONTENTS. 


PAQB 

"No  case,  abuse  the  plaintiff"   ...      43 

Open  up 50 

Alanguage  that  grewt«pby  being  broughtc?ozf)n.      51 
Neglect  of  the  study  of  English  at  our  public 

schools 53 

"An  individual  occurring  in  Shakspeare  "  65,  135 
A  fact  "  stated  into  prominence  "        .         .66 

Dean's  English 68 

A  literary  curiosity    .         .         .         .        Tl,  135 

The  play  of  Hamlet  with  the  Ghost  left  out      T 1 

Misquotation  of  an  opponent's  words 

Misrepresentations     .... 

'■'•Seeing  "  is  not  always  *'  heliev'mg  "  . 

Misquotation  of  Scripture . 

"  Why  do  you  call  me  an  ass  ?"  . 

A  letter  to  the  Editor  of  '  The  Patriot 

Explanation  respecting  the  charge  of  dis 

courtesy 

Withdrawal  of  the  charge  of  discourtesy 
A  teacher  is  always  amenable  to  criticism 
What  is  a  nucleus  ?    . 
"  Right  to  a  r' 

The  importance  of  trifles  . 

A  groundless  fear       .... 

John  Milton  on  rules  and  maxims 

An  anecdote  of  Douglas  Jerrold 

'  The  Edinburgh  Revieio '  on  '  Sordello ' 

Educated  persons       .... 

Irishisms, — "and  the  like" 

"  Th.Q final '  u '  in  tenour  "  and  "  i\\e  final '  i 
in  months  "        .... 

Variety  not  always  charming 

No  special  training  in  English  at  our  Colleges 

The  English  language  compared  to  a  temple 

The  injurious  effects  of  Dean  Alford's  essays 

Hypei'criticism 

Irresistible  progress  of  language 


80,  136 

81,  13'7 

84 

86 

86 

89 

90 

91 

94 

98 

99 

100 

103 

104 

107 

111 

IIG 
117 
119 
122 
141 
151 
162 


CONTENTS. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 


PACK 

'  The  Ediyiburgh  Review  '    . 

XXV 

*  The  Westminster  Heview ' 

XXV 

'  The  Dublin  Review ' 

xxvi 

'  The  London  Review '          ,         .         . 

xxvi 

'  The  London  Quarterly  Review ' 

xxvii 

'  The  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Reviei 

y'   xxvii 

'  The  Weekly  Review '          .         .         . 

xxviii 

'  The  Social  Science  Reviev) ' 

xxviii 

'  77)6  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  '  . 

xxix 

'  TTie  Phonetic  Jo2cr7ial '      . 

XXX 

'The  Record'    ..... 

.     xxxiv 

'  The  Churchman '      .         .         .         . 

XXXV 

'Tlie  Church  Review' 

xxxvi 

♦  The  Church  Standard'     . 

xxxvi 

'  The  Christian  Observer '  . 

.    xxxvii 

'  The  Christian  News '        .         .         . 

.    xxxvii 

'  7%e  London  Christian  Times  '  . 

xxxviii 

'  The  Nonconformist '         .         .         . 

xxxix 

'The  Patriot' 

xl 

'  The  English  Journal  of  Education ' . 

xli 

'  The  Educational  Times '  . 

xliii 

'  The  Daily  News'      .... 

xliv 

'  The  Newsman '         .         .         .         . 

xlv 

'  The  Cambridge  Independent  Press'  . 

xlv 

'  TJie  Sunday  Times '          .         .         . 

xlv 

*  The  Morning  Advertiser  ' 

xlvi 

'  The  Court  Circular '         .         .         . 

xlvi 

'  Public  Opinion '        .         .         .         . 

xlvi 

®fe  fctotersg  011  tlje  fiteeit's  dfuglislr. 


EXTRACTS    FROM    REVIEWS. 


The  EDiNBURGn  Review. 

Mr.  Washington  Moon  amused  himself  by 
demonstrating  that  while  the  Dean  undertook 
to  instruct  others,  the  author  was  himself  but 
a  castaway  in  matters  of  grammar.  The  Dean's 
style  is  neither  particularly  elegant  nor  correct, 
and  his  adversary  sometimes  hits  him  hard ; 
besides  in  one  or  two  cases  successfully  dis- 
puting his  judgments. 


The  Westminster  Review. 

The  Dean  has  laid  himself  open  to  criticism 
as  much  for  bad  taste  as  for  questionable  syn- 
tax. His  style  of  writing  is  awkward  and 
slovenly,  that  of  his  antagonist  remarkably 
terse  and  clear,  and  bearing  witness  to  a  sensi- 
tiveness of  ear  and  taste  which  are  glaringly 
deficient  in  his  opponent. 


•••■      •  lEXTl^AeSPS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

The  Dublin  Review. 

Every  reader  of  Dean  Alford's  '  Queenh  Eng- 
'  lull '  should  make  himself  acquainted  with  '  The 
^DearCs  English\  by  Mr.  G.  Washington  Moon. 
He  has  exposed  certain  Hterary  trips  on  the  part 
of  his  antagonist,  in  an  amusing  and  teUing  way, 
and  has  put  together  a  smart  Httle  volume 
which  is  well  worth  the  reading.  We  think 
that  even  practised  writers  may  learn  a  lesson 
or  two  in  the  art  of  expressing  themselves  in 
their  mother  tongue  clearly  and  correctly,  by  a 
perusal,  both  of  the  Dean's  '  Stray  Notes '  and 
of  Mr.  Moon's  rejoinder. 


The  London  Review. 

Both  Dean  Alford's  book  on  '  The  Queeri'a 
*■  EngUsh\  and  Mr.  G.  Washington  Moon's  slash- 
ing commentary  on  the  same,  entitled  '  The 
'■  Dean^s  E)igUsh\  in  which  he  certainly  makes 
mincemeat  of  a  good  deal  of  his  opponent's 
composition,  are  calculated  to  render  consider- 
able service  to  loose  thinkers,  speakers,  and 
writers  ;  and  certainly  both  are  very  enter- 
taining. Mr,  Moon's  volume  points  out  some 
serious  errors  of  style ;  it  diminishes  the  pre- 
tensions of  a  censor  who,  though  himself  ren- 
dering good  service  to  the  purity  of  our  tongue^ 
is  certainly  not  entitled  to  be  so  loftily  severe 
on  others  ;  and  it  has  the  relish  and  zest  of  a 
sharp  passage  of  arms. 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

The  London  Quarterly  Review. 
The  books  which  come  next  are  those  of  Dean 
Alford  and  Mr.  Moon.  Last  year  the  former 
contributed  some  interesting  papers  to  '  Good 
*  Words''  on  the  '  QueevbS  EiigUsh\  Like  a 
liege  subject,  he  entered  the  lists  against  the  foes 
of  his  sovereign  lady,  and  had  already  un- 
horsed some  pretenders,  when,  lo  !  another 
knight — and  no  carpet  knight — appeared  upon 
the  arena,  and  charged  the  Dean  ;  accusing 
him  of  having  been  guilty  of  the  very  viola- 
tions of  law  and  good  taste  which  he  had  con- 
demned in  others.  These  doughty  champions 
ended  their  feud  in  peace.  But  Mr.  Moon  may 
say,  "  What  I  have  written,  I  have  written". 

Mr.  Moon  knows  the  secrets  of  both  the 
strength  and  the  grace  of  his  own  tongue  ;  and 
should,  we  think,  follow  up  the  good  impression 
he  has  produced,  by  publishing  something  that 
might  help  young  writers  to  the  acquisition  of 
a  pure  and  nervous  style. 


The  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  REVIEM^ 
Readers  will  remember  Dean  Alford's  papers 
on  '  The  Queen's  English^  in  ^Good  Woj'ds\  and 
the  correspondence  they  provoked.  Mr.  Moon 
was  one  of  the  Dean's  adversaries,  and  fired  off 
a  pamphlet  against  him,  which  called  forth  a 
rejoinder  from  the  warlike  Dean.  But  the 
critic  laid  himself  open  to  a  cross  fire,  and  got 
criticised  to  his  heart's  content.  Many  thought 
Mr.  Moon  had  by  no  means  the  worst  of  it  in 
the  war  of  words  and  strife  of  tongues. 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

The  Weekly  Review. 
Dk.  Alfokd,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  is  known  as 
a  devout  and  accomplished  minister — as  an  ex- 
cellent preacher — as  the  author  of  a  critical  and 
expository  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which 
is  an  evidence  of  his  industry  and  research,  if 
not  of  profound  scholarship — and  as  the  writer 
of  one  or  two  fair  specimens  of  poetical  compo- 
sition. In  addition  to  the  claims  which  any  or 
all  of  the  foregoing  may  give  him  on  public 
confidence  and  regard,  the  Dean  has  been  de- 
sirous to  assert  for  himself  the  reputation  of  a 
philologist  and  grammarian,  and  to  place  him- 
self in  the  position  of  arbiter  and  oracle  on  the 
subject  of  the  "  Queen's  English".  Mr.  Moon 
is  not  disposed  to  bow  to  Dean  Alford  in  this 
matter,  and  in  reply  to  the  Anglican  clergy- 
man's '  Queeji's  English '  has  come  forth  with 
''The  Beanos  English\  It  is  a  pretty  generally 
received  opinion  that  the  ecclesiastic  has  got 
the  worst  of  it. 

Mr.  Moon  not  only  shows  (in  several  instances 
at  least)  that  Dr.  Alford  is  wrong  in  the  ex  ca- 
thedra judgments  he  pronounces  as  to  certain 
popular  forms  of  speech,  but  demonstrates  that 
the  Dean's  whole  papers  are  specimens  of  slip- 
shod writing,  and  abound  with  inelegancies,  if 
not  inaccuracies,  of  composition. 


The  Social  Science  Review. 
In  calmly  reviewing  the  whole  matter,  we  can- 
not but  feel  that  Mr.  Moon  has  come  off  the 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

victor;  and  if  there  are  some  few  remarks  of 
a  strictly  personal  character,  that  we  would 
rather  have  seen  omitted  from  this  second  edi- 
tion of  his  work,  we  must  admit  that  it  is  a 
smart  piece  of  verbal  prose  criticism,  and  is  of 
more  than  passing  interest.  Mr.  Moon  well 
performs  his  self-imposed  task :  he  evinces  a 
fine  sense  of  discernment  in  the  niceties  of  lan- 
guage ;  and,  while  severely  criticising  the  sen- 
tences of  his  opponent,  shows  that  he  himself 
knows  how  to  write  in  a  remarkably  clear, 
terse,  and  vigorous  style. 

We  have  only  to  add,  that  we  have  read 
'  The  Deanh  English '  with  pleasure,  and  we 
can  recommend  this  carefully  prepared  work — 
which  does  credit  alike  to  author  and  publisher 
— to  all  who  are  interested  in  the  study  of  lan- 
guage, or  desire  to  sharpen  their  wits  by  the 
perusal  of  a  little  Cobbett-like  criticism. 


The    Journal    of    Sacred    Literature. 

The  critic's  calling  is  exceedingly  difficult,  and 
requires  for  its  successful  prosecution  an  aggre- 
gate of  moral  and  intellectual  excellencies  which 
few  men  possess.  Again,  it  is  a  very  difficult 
thing  to  speak  and  to  write  good  English ;  yet 
everybody  thinks  he  can  both  speak  and  write 
it,  and  most  men  fancy  they  can  criticize  it  too. 
But  the  difficulty  of  producing  unexceptionable 
English,  lays  open  to  censure  almost  all  writers 
and  speakers.     Dean  Alford  is  an  example :  we 


EXTRACTS   FROM   REVIEWS. 

know  him  to  be  a  popular  writer,  and  we  believe 
him  to  be  a  good  one  ;  but  he  is  not  faultless, 
and,  having  been  tempted  in  an  evil  hour  to 
turn  critic,  he  has  brouglit  upon  himself  a 
deluge  of  criticism.  Mr.  Moon  in  particular 
overwhelms  him  with  accusations,  to  some  of 
which  we  fear  he  must  plead  guilty.  "We  read 
Dean  Alford's  book  on  the  Queen's  English, 
"with  considerable  pleasure,  and  gathered  out  of 
it  some  useful  hints,  but  we  felt,  at  the  same 
time,  that  he  employed  constructions  which 
were  doubtful,  and  that  his  opinions  did  not 
alwaj'S  agree  with  what  we  had  been  led  to 
regard  as  good  usage. 

Mr.  Moon  has  raised  a  far  larger  number  of 
objections  than  occurred  to  us,  and  the  volume 
in  which  he  embodies  them  is  one  of  the  smart- 
est pieces  of  criticism  wo.  ever  read.  It  is  not 
only  admirable  as  a  specimen  of  critical  style, 
but  it  abounds  in  suggestions  which  no  man 
in  his  senses  can  undervalue :  more  than  this, 
it  is  a  delightful  example  of  good  writing.  The 
vigour  of  the  critic  is  sometimes  almost  like 
severity,  but  we  doubt  whether  it  is  ever  mali- 
cious, and  so  we  enjoy  the  book  and  learn  from 
it  at  one  and  the  same  time. 


The  Phonetic  Journal. 

If,  as  some  good  people  hold,  everybody  and 
everything  is  created,  not  merely  for  a  general, 
but  moreover  for  some  specific,  purpose,  then  we 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

might  infer  that  the  particular  use  to  which 
Nature  destined  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  was  to 
set  himself  up  to  lecture  upon  the  Queen's 
English,  and  so  to  offer  himself  as  a  conspicuous 
mark,  and  a  defenceless  victim,  to  the  scathing 
criticism  and  merciless  exposure  of  Mr.  George 
Washington  Moon.  Not  for  many  years,  have 
we  seen  such  a  brilliant  and  effective  passage  of 
arms,  as  is  contained  in  the  little  book  under 
notice,  which  consists  principally  of  three  letters 
addressed  to  Dr.  Alford.  To  say,  that  the  poor 
Dean  is  worsted  in  the  encounter,  is  to  say  very 
little.  His  defeat  is  almost  too  complete.  Like 
an  untrained  youth,  in  the  grasp  of  an  athlete, 
he  never  has  even  a  chance.  At  every  round, 
he  is  quickly  thrown  ;  and  the  blows,  given 
with  a  will,  and  planted  with  a  precision  and 
vigour,  which  no  feint  can  elude,  fall  fast  and 
heavily  on  his  defenceless  head.  At  every 
point,  the  Dean  is  confronted  by  his  pertinacious 
and  inexorable  assailant,  who  leaves  him  no 
possibility  of  escape ;  or,  if  he  does  occasion- 
ally attempt  a  feeble  defence,  it  only  serves  to 
bring  down  upon  himself  still  severer  punish- 
ment, until,  exhausted  by  the  encounter,  he 
does  that,  which,  for  his  own  sake,  he  had 
better  have  done  at  first — makes  peace  with  his 
adversar}'-  while  yet  he  is  in  the  way  with  him. 
To  set  one's  self  up  for  a  teacher  of  English, 
pure  and  undeliled  ;  jauntily  to  ascend  the 
rostrum,  as  one  gifted  Avith  authority  to  lay 
down  the  whole  law ;  and  then  to  be  met  with 
such    a   withering   exposure    of   incompetence, 

C 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

with  such  inevitable  inferences  of  imbecility, 
as  constitute  the  staple  of  Mr.  Moon's  book ; 
for  the  physician,  who  gratuitously  obtrudes 
his  advice  upon  us,  and  vaunts  his  ability  to 
cure  our  disorder, — for  him  to  be  convicted  of 
labouring  under  a  virulent  form  of  the  same 
disease,  certainly  this  is  not  a  pleasant  position 
for  a  man  to  occupy,  and  we  heartily  commiser- 
ate the  unfortunate  Dean. 

Even  in  the  fair  field  of  criticism  he  is  quite 
unable  to  cope  with  his  skilful  and  alert  adver- 
sary. Never  was  there  a  more  conspicuous 
instance  of  going  out  to  shear,  and  coming 
home  shorn.  For  our  own  part,  we  would 
rather  have  submitted  to  a  month's  stone- 
breaking  than  have  called  down  upon  ourselves 
such  withering  sarcasms  and  incisive  irony  as 
Dr.  Alford's  language  has  so  justly  provoked. 

To  those  who  are  interested  in  speaking  and 
writing  good  English,— and  what  educated  per- 
son is  not  ? — this  book  is  full  of  instruction  ; 
and  to  those  who  enjoy  a  controversy,  conducted 
with  consummate  skill,  and  in  excellent  taste 
by  a  strong  man,  well  armed,  it  is  such  a  treat 
as  does  not  fall  in  one's  way  often  during  a  life- 
time. Regarded  in  itself,  and  without  any 
immediate  reference  to  its  object,  this  book 
affords  a  model  of  correct  and  elegant  English  ; 
such  as  it  is  a  perfect  treat  to  meet  with,  in 
these  days  of  slip-shod  writing.  Perspicuous, 
compact  and  nervous  in  its  construction,  it  is 
by  no  means  deficient  in  some  of  the  higher  and 
more  brilliant  qualities  of  style;  while,  for  re- 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

fined  sarcasm  and  covert  irony,  it  has  rarely 
been  equalled.  We  can  assure  our  readers 
that  a  pleasanter  or  more  profitable  employ- 
ment than  the  perusal  of  this  book,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  recommend  to  them. 

Many  of  our  public  writers,  highly  educated, 
and  perhaps  because  they  have  been  so  educated, 
undertake  English  composition  as  if  it  were  the 
one  exceptional  art  which  required  no  rules  but 
the  "  rule  of  thumb."  To  such,  the  lamentable 
fiasco  of  the  Dean,  owing  to  his  disregard  of 
rules,  slioulcl  be  a  lesson,  but,  too  probably, 
will  not.  We  cannot  help  wishing  that  a  writer 
who  is  so  eminently  qualified  as  Mr.  Moon  to 
teach  a  subject  which,  just  now,  so  greatly 
needs  to  be  taught,  and  who  illustrates  so 
admirably  by  his  example  the  precepts  that  he 
so  clearly  enforces,  would  devote  himself  to 
the  task  of  drawing  up  a  code  of  rules  for 
composition,  such  as  our  journalists  and  period- 
ical writers  might  appeal  to,  as  a  standard  for 
correct  English.  We  are  of  opinion  that  there 
is  a  crying  want  of  such  a  work,  that  it  would 
be  one  of  the  most  useful  and  most  popular 
works  of  the  day,  and  that  Mr.  Moon,  with  his 
thorough  mastery  of  the  subject,  with  his  keen 
perception,  nice  judgment,  and  pellucid  and 
elegant  style,  is  just  the  person  to  write  it. 
When  a  man  displays  peculiar  aptitudes,  and 
of  a  high  order,  for  a  given  subject,  we  grieve, 
we  almost  resent  it,  if  our  natural  expectations 
should  remain  unfulfilled.  We  feel  that  to  be 
defeated  of  our  hopes  is,  in  some  sense,  to  be 

C  2 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

defrauded  of  our  rights.  We  think  we  have  a 
right  to  call  upon  Mr.  Moon,  now  that  he  has 
once  exhibited  this  shining  talent,  not  to  wrap 
it  up  again  in  a  napkin,  but  to  put  it  out  to 
interest,  and  we  have  no  doubt  of  its  bringing 
him  back  most  abundant  returns.  We  enter- 
tain this  opinion  notwithstanding  Mr.  Moon's 
disclaimer  that  "very  little  can  be  added  to 
the  canons  of  criticism  already  laid  down ; 
though  very  much  may  be  done  for  the  per- 
manent enriching  of  our  language,  by  popular 
writers  using  more  care  as  to  the  examples 
they  set  in  composition,  than  as  to  the  lessons 
they  teach  concerning  it."  It  is  precisely  be- 
cause Mr.  Moon  teaches  so  well  by  example, 
that  we  would  fain  have  him  make  this  example 
the  vehicle  for  the  inculcation  of  precepts,  and 
the  execution  of  the  work  the  best  comment 
upon,  and  illustration  of,  its  rules. 


The  Record. 


Readers  remember  a  series  of  papers  on 
'  The  Queen's  English '  by  Dean  Alford,  which 
first  appeared  in  '  Good  Words',  Immediately 
on  the  publication  of  the  first  paper,  the  learned 
Dean  was  inundated  with  epistolary  comments, 
critiques,  and  remonstrances  by  volunteer  critics 
from  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  most  for- 
midable of  these  assailants  was  the  redoubtable 
Mr.  Moon,  who,  after  a  preliminary  skirmish  or 
two  in  private,  came  out  with  a  positive 
pamphlet.     The  Dean  replied,   and   Mr.    Moon 


EXTRACTS   FROM  REVIEWS. 

returned  again  and  again  to  the  charge.  The 
final  result  is  that  the  Dean's  essays  re  col- 
lected into  a  revised  volume,  and  Mr.  Moon's 
have  settled  down  and  completed  themselves 
in  another.  Most  readers  will,  we  believe, 
think  with  us  that  Mr.  Moon  comes  cleanest  out 
of  the  controversy,  and  has  in  every  way  the 
best  of  the  argument.  The  Dean  entered 
the  arena  with  a  light  jaunty  step,  and  spoke 
with  the  air,  and  in  the  tone,  of  a  man  whose 
decision  was  to  be  final ;  all  he  said  at  first  was 
quite  ex'  cathedra^  and  bore  the  look  of  being 
said  by  one  whose  ipse  dixit  was  to  settle  all 
strife  about  words  :  a  very  Daniel  in  the  person 
of  a  Dean  had  come  to  judgment.  But  he 
speedily  had  to  lower  his  pretensions.  Mr. 
Moon  cried,  "Physician,  heal  thyself.  Before 
you  attempt  to  teach  us  how  to  use  the  Queen's 
English,  see  that  you  know  how  to  write  it  your- 
self." Coming  out  for  wool,  in  fact,  the  Dean 
went  back  shorn ;  rushing  forth  to  teach,  he 
went  home  taught.  We  can  cordially  recom- 
mend Mr.  Moon's  volume.  It  is  really  an  able 
critique.  The  argument  is  conducted  with 
admirable  temper,  and  no  reader  can  finish  the 
volume  without  learning  many  valuable  lessons 
in  English  composition,  and  some  other  things 
well  worth  knowing:. 


The  Churchman. 


Mr.   Moon  has  performed  a  public  service  by 
his  exposure  of  the  errors  into  which  men  of 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

even  the  position  of  Dean  Alford  fall  when  they 
attempt  to  write  English.  The  amusing  speci- 
mens of  ungrammatical  and  slovenly  sentences 
which  are  here  collected  will  serve,  we  hope,  to 
warn  authors  against  similar  offences,  and  we 
think  Mr.  Moon  entitled  to  the  gratitude  of  all 
lovers  of  our  language  in  its  purity  for  this  ex- 
posure of  the  Dean's  English. 


The  Church  Review. 

We  do  not  wonder  to  see  the  collection  of  Mr. 
Washington  Moon's  criticisms  in  their  third 
edition.  The  vigour  with  which  he  has  at- 
tacked unlucky  Dean  Alford,  and  the  awkward 
way  in  which  the  latter  struggles  and  kicks 
under  the  infliction,  are  very  entertaining.  It 
is  curious  to  see  mistakes  and  inelegancies  per- 
petrated in  English  composition  for  one  tithe  of 
which  in  the  classical  languages  the  offenders 
would  meet  with  severe  castigation,  and  for 
which,  indeed,  they  themselves  would  blush 
with  shame.  The  book  is  one  which  we  should 
wish  to  put  into  the  hands  of  our  young  learner 
of  English,  that  he  may  be  upon  his  guard 
against  current  modes  of  speech,  and  the  adop- 
tion of  custom  as  a  standard. 


The  Church  Standard. 

There  is  so  much  in  this  neatly  printed  volume 
to  command  our  approval,  that  we  cannot  with- 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

hold  our  meed  of  praise.  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  sound  and  trenchant  criticism,  and  the  style 
is  vigorous,  versatile,  and  epigrammatic. 


The  Christian  Observer. 

We  believe  with  Mr.  Moon,  that  Dean  Alford's 
English  is  singularly  incorrect,  and  that  the 
style  of  his  reproofs  is  utterly  indefensible. 


The  Christian  News. 

To  fathers  of  families  this  book  will  be  worth 
more  than  all  the  money  which  they  are  now 
paying  for  their  children's  grammar.  In  many 
of  the  criticisips,  the  acumen  displayed  by  Mr. 
Moon  is  of  no  common  kind.  His  letters  are 
models  of  English  composition,  and  are  so  full 
of  animation,  so  sharp,  lively,  and  trenchant, 
that  it  is  quite  a  treat  to  read  them.  He  has 
demonstrated  beyond  dispute  that  the  Dean  of 
Canterbury,  who  sets  himself  up  as  a  defender 
of  the  English  language,  commits  the  most 
culpable  blunders  in  writing  it.  The  formida- 
ble indictment  is  supported  with  an  ability  and 
acuteness  we  have  seldom  seen  excelled.  Mr. 
Moon  writes  with  greater  elegance,  with  greater 
ease,  with  greater  perspicuity,  with  greater 
vigour,  and  with  incomparably  greater  accuracy, 
than  his  opponent.  He  has  rendered  a  dry  and 
forbidding  subject  both  pleasing  and  profitable. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

Though  there  is  a  remorseless  exactness  about 
his  criticisms  which  makes  one  feel  as  if  the 
writing-  of  proper  English  were  a  hopeless 
attempt,  there  is  really  nothing  of  the  true 
pedant  about  him  any  more  than  there  is  about 
the  sturdy  Dean  himself.  Both  volumes  arc 
equally  free  from  pedantry,  and  both,  though 
in  different  senses,  we  can  recommend  to  all 
who  take  any  interest  in  the  subject. 


The  London  Christian  Times. 

There  are  but  few  of  our  readers,  we  presume, 
"who  have  not  already  heard  of  this  work  ;  but 
we  are  nevertheless  glad  of  an  opportunity  of 
expressing  the  opinion  we  entertain  of  its  merits, 
and  of  urging  the  perusal  of  it  upon  all  our 
friends,  especially  upon  those  who  have  read 
'  The  QueerCs  English.''  The  raciness  and  smart- 
ness of  these  criticisms  invest  a  dry  subject 
with  interest.  The  frequent  discomfiture  of  the 
warlike  Dean  will  amuse  all  persons,  and  we 
have  no  doubt  that  the  contents  of  this  book  will 
enliven  many  a  fireside  during  these  long,  dark, 
winter  evenings.  We  shall  be  mistaken  if 
the  perusal  of  it  does  not  lead,  amongst  the 
members  of  many  domestic  circles,  to  a  good- 
humoured  criticism,  for  a  time,  of  each  other's 
words  and  sentences.  The  result  will  be  in- 
creasing correctness  in  the  phraseology  em- 
ployed ;  and  that  the  end  of  both  the  Dean  and 
his  critic  will  be  in  some  good  degree  realised. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

We  have  spoken  of  "  the  discomfiture  of  the 
"  warlike  Dean,"  and  we  cannot  doubt,  that,  on 
the  whole,  this  word  fitly  describes  the  result  of 
this  smart  passage  of  arms.  The  Dean  advanced 
with  the  bearing  of  one  who  deemed  that  he  had 
no  superior,  if  indeed,  any  equal.  He  did  not 
imagine  that  anyone  would  be  found  daring- 
enough  to  confront  him,  and  to  dispute  the 
positions  he  had  assumed.  Mr.  Moon,  with 
little  delky  or  ceremony,  attacked  and  repulsed 
him ;  caring  nothing  for  offended  dignity,  or 
anything  else,  save  the  vindication  of  the  truth. 
It  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  he  is  fond  of  a 
brush.  He  goes  about  his  work  and  prosecutes 
it  con  amore. 

Scarcely  a  page  occurs  in  this  small  volume 
in  which  the  Dean  is  not  proved  to  have  fallen 
into  errors,  either  of  grammar,  construction, 
orthography,  or  pronunciation.  Whenever  he 
shall  write  again  in  defence  of  the  Queen's 
English,  he  will,  no  doubt,  write  with  greater 
care.  He  has  done  the  public  good  service  by 
introducing  the  subject ;  but  the  advantage 
gained  will  be  owing,  in  a  very  great  degree,  to 
the  criticisms  of  his  accomplished  and  keen- 
eyed  antagonist. 


The  Nonconfokmist. 


There  is  really  something  quite  refreshing 
about  Mr.  Moon's  l)rocJiures.  He  must  excuse 
our  confessing  to  a  slight  sense  of  amusement, 
on  a  first  perusal  of  his  strictures  on  the  Dean. 


xl  EXTRACTS    FROM  REVIEWS. 

The  spirit  of  hearty  vehemence  by  which  they 
were  pervaded  only  failed  to  elicit  our  complete 
sympathy,  because  it  seemed  to  us  that  the 
object  of  so  vigorous  an  assault  was  after  all  a 
"  man  of  straw".  The  faults  of  style,  and  even 
of  grammatical  structure,  in  Dean  Alford's 
essays,  were  so  obvious  that  a  less  grave  mode 
of  exposure  would  have  seemed  to  us  more 
appropriate.  However,  we  thank  Mr.  Moon 
very  cordially  for  what  he  has  done,«ind  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying  that  he  has  so  far  suc- 
ceeded in  his  vindication  of  pure  and  correct, 
as  opposed  to  lax  and  slipshod,  English,  as  to 
deserve  the  gratitude  of  those  who,  like  our- 
selves, deem  our  mother  tongue,  in  all  its 
restraints  as  well  as  in  all  its  liberties,  to  be 
one  of  the  most  precious  inheritances  of  Eng- 
lishmen. 


The  Patriot. 

One  would  have  thought  that  the  Dean,  in  re- 
plying to  animadversions  upon  his  style,  would 
have  written  with  especial  care  ;  instead  of  this, 
his  second  article  contains  more  and  grosser 
faults  than  his  first.  The  Dean  boldly  avows 
his  disrespect  for  Lindley  Murray,  treats  him 
with  as  little  reverence  as  Colenso  treats  Moses, 
and  forthwith  proceeds,  somewhat  flagrantly, 
to  exemplify  his  boasted  ignorance  of  the  whole- 
some rules  according  to  which  all  of  good  English 
that  we  knew  at  school  was  flogged  into  us. 
Had  this  been  the  Dean's  schoolboy  experience 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS.  xli 

too,  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  would  have 
been  better  for  him  now.  Mr.  Moon  gives  the 
Dean  a  severe  castigation  for  more  than  offences 
against  the  Queen's  English  ;  and  we  are  bound, 
in  justice,  to  say  that  the  Dean  has  fairly  pro- 
voked it.  Had  he  been  a  little  less  self-opin- 
ionated, and  a  little  more  respectful  towards  one 
who  appears  to  have  addressed  him,  in  the  first 
instance,  with  all  gentlemanly  courtesy,  Mr. 
Moon  would  not,  probably,  have  appeared  in 
print.  As  it  is,  while  we  cannot  altogether  ex- 
tenuate the  tone  of  Mr.  Moon's  second  letter, 
we  are  compelled  to  say  that  Dean  Alford's 
paper  singularly  lacks  both  the  simplicity  of  a 
great  mind  and  the  deference  of  a  great  scholar. 
Mr.  Moon  is  no  meddling  ignoramus.  He  is  by 
no  means  impeccable  himself ;  but,  as  a  master 
of  the  English  language,  he  is  far  superior  to 
the  Dean. 


The  English  Journal  of  Education. 

The  Dean  of  Canterbury,  apparently  desirous 
of  emulating  a  fellow-dignitary,  whose  hearty 
and  learned  labours  in  the  mine  of  our  lan- 
guage have  opened  up  veins  of  richness  few 
ever  dreamed  of,  has  published  an  article  en- 
titled '•A  Plea  for  the  Queenh  EngUsli\  The 
work  we  review  is  a  reply  to  the  Dean's 
production.  "We  are  greatly  obhged  to  Mr. 
Moon  for  taking  up  the  matter.  It  would  have 
been  a  pity  to  have  allowed  the  Dean  to  escape 


xlii  EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

a  castigation  he  deserved.  We  do  not  expect 
the  physician  who  attends  us  to  be  exempt  from 
all  complaints  at  all  times.  He  is  mortal,  and 
subject  to  mortal  ills.  But  if  we  find  hira 
giving  us  advice  as  to  a  course  of  physic  or 
diet,  which  course  he  himself  does  not  follow 
when  he  is  similarly  afflicted,  we  give  him 
credit  for  either  insincerity  or  ignorance.  The 
Dean  sets  himself  up  as  a  healer  of  the  sick- 
nesses brought  by  careless  habit  on  the  "  Queen's 
"  English" ;  but,  while  pointing  out  those  com- 
plaints and  prescribing  their  remedies,  he  was 
labouring  under  similar  maladies,  whose  exist- 
ence in  himself  he  utterly  ignored,  or  repre- 
sented as  virtues  rather  than  otherwise,  when 
Mr.  Moon  privately  pointed  them  out  to  him. 
Such  a  doctor  merits  no  confidence,  and  the 
exposure  of  his  incapacity  is  a  public  good. 
In  light,  lively  writing,  strict  correctness  of 
diction  and  arrangement  is  not  requisite.  For 
our  recreation  reading,  the  stately  periods  of 
Robertson  would  be  intolerable  ;  but  Dickens's 
brilliant  page,  utterly  ignoring  stops  and  vio- 
lating all  rules  of  composition,  is  delightfully 
fresh  and  grateful.  Dashing  leaders  in  the 
papers  we  do  not  expect  to  find  reducible  to 
strict  principles  like  those  laid  down  by  Kames 
or  Campbell.  But  when  a  man  seriously  pre- 
tends to  be  writing  to  amend  faults,  his  own 
.  style  should  be  faultless,  especially  when  he 
speaks  in  the  tone  of  calm,  self-assured  supe- 
riority to  vulgar  error  which  the  Dean  of 
Canterbury    assumes.      It    would    occupy    too 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS.  .       xliii 

much  space  were  we  to  give  a  resume  of 
the  contents  of  Mr.  Moon's  clever  work. 
We  coincide  with  all  his  strictures  on  the 
Dean's  article,  and  do  not  doubt  that,  with 
ourselves,  he  could  have  pointed  to  many  more 
egregious  blunders  on  the  part  of  this  new 
would-be  critic.  We  advise  all  our  readers  to 
see  Mr.  Moon's  reply.  Written  in  pure,  for- 
cible, elegant,  and  classic  English — perfect  in 
composition  and  punctuation,  and  in  its  gentle- 
manly dignity  so  opposed  to  the  slipshod, 
half-vulgar  easiness  of  the  Dean's  ''Plea'' — it 
merits  the  attention  of  all  students  of  our 
tongue,  and  shows  that  though  in  familiar  talk 
and  writing  we  may  be  as  men  at  home — free 
and  at  our  ease — there  is  not  wanting  amongst 
us  that  covert  stateliness  and  rigid  propriety 
which  a  weighty  subject  demands. 


The  Educational  Times. 

This  is  a  continuation  of  the  now  somewhat 
notorious  controversy  between  Dean  Alford  and 
Mr,  Washington  Moon,  on  certain  points  arising 
out  of  the  publication  of  the  Dean's  '  Plea  for 
'  the  Queen's  English ',  which  Mr.  Moon  seems 
to  have  considered  to  be  itself  far  from  free 
from  the  very  faults  of  grammar  and  diction  it 
professed  to  hold  up  to  reprobation.  We 
think  that  in  this  linguistic  passage  of  arms 
Mr.  Moon  has  decidedly  the  best  of  it. 


xliv  EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 


The  Daily  News. 

Dean  Alford  could  hardly  have  reflected  upon 
what  he  was  about  to  do  when  he  sat  down 
to  write  an  easy,  gossipy  sort  of  paper  for  '  Good 
'  Words''  on  the  subject  of  common  errors  in 
speaking  and  in  writing  English.  He  certainly 
did  not  expect  his  free  remarks  to  be  so  sharply 
challenged  as  they  have  been.  And  he  finds 
himself  engaged  in  a  kind  of  controversy  for 
which  neither  his  natural  turn  of  mind,  nor  his 
particular  training  has  fitted  him.  His  own 
style  is  at  times  so  poor,  so  loose  in  the  joints, 
so  deficient  in  clear  and  sensitive  perception  of 
the  proper  force  of  words,  that  people  have 
naturally  wondered  as  to  how  this  writer,  above 
all  others,  could  have  been  led  to  assume  the 
critic's  function.  He  sticks  to  it,  however ; 
revises  and  republishes  his  strictures,  and 
seems  not  to  have  the  least  idea  that  he  has 
been  beaten  in  the  battle.  Mr.  Moon,  there- 
fore, his  foremost  antagonist,  gives  him  here 
the  benefit  of  a  third  letter  in  answer  to  his 
*  Plea  Number  Three.''  The  Dean  is  clearly  in 
error  in  his  contempt  for  the  grammarians. 
He  might  very  properly  enlighten  them  if  he 
could  show  that  they  have  framed  some  of  their 
rules  on  too  narrow  grounds,  but  he  is  himself 
a  warning  example  against  the  neglect  of 
regular  English  teaching  in  our  great  schools. 
It  may  be  hoped  that  he  will  improve — he  cer- 
tainly ought  under  Mr.  Moon's  instructions. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS.  xlv 


The  Newsman. 

Greatly  as  we  fear  that  the  Dean  of  Canterbury 
has  failed  to  estabUsh  his  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  an  authority  on  the  Queen's  English,  we,  by 
no  means,  regret  the  appearance  of  his  present 
\vork ;  and  for  this  reason — had  there  never 
been  '  The  QueerCs  English ',  there  would  pro- 
bably never  have  been  '  The  DearHs  English ' ; 
and  had  there  never  been  '  The  Dean^s  English ', 
the  world  would  have  lost  a  very  valuable  con- 
tribution to  English  philology,  and  one  of  the 
most  masterly  pieces  of  literary  criticism  in 
the  language. 


The  Cambridge  Independent  Press. 

It  is  written  with  a  power  of  sarcasm  and 
criticism  rarely  excelled.  Mr.  Moon  is  a 
brilliant  writer  ;  his  work  is  full  of  point, 
sound  in  English,  and  deserves  to  be  generally 
read. 


The  Sunday  Times. 

Mr.  Moon  has  rendered  a  real  service  to  litera- 
ture in  this  exposure  of  Dean  Alford,  and  we 
are  glad  to  express  our  recognition  of  the  value 
of  his  labours. 


xlvi  EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 

The  Morning  Advertiser. 

It  is  one  of  the  smartest  pieces  of  prose- 
criticism  we  have  chanced  to  meet  with  for 
many  a  day. 


The  Court  Circular. 

All  who  are  interested  in  such  critical  discus- 
sions as  are  so  clearly  and  accurately  carried  on 
in  this  little  book  will  be  grateful  to  Mr.  Moon^ 
not  only  for  much  solid  instruction,  but  for 
much  entertainment  also. 


Public  Opinion. 


A  critical  study  of  the  English  language  is 
always  a  pleasant  task ;  it  is  here  rendered 
doubly  agreeable  by  the  happy  style  of  the 
author  of  '  The  Dean's  English'. 


THE  DEAFS  ENGLISH: 

A  CRITICISM. 


To  THE  Very  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  d.d., 
Dean  of  Canterbury. 

Rev.  Sir, 

On  the  publication  of  your  '  Plea  for 
*  the  Queen's  English '  *  I  was  surprised  to 
observe  inaccuracies  in  the  structure  of 
your  sentences  and  more  than  one  gram- 
matical error.  Under  ordinary  circum- 
stances I  should  not  have  taken  notice 
of  such  deviations  from  what  is  strictly 
correct  in  composition ;  but  the  subject  of 
your  essay  being  the  Queen's  English,  ray 
attention   was    naturally   drawn    to    the 

*  '  A  Plea  for  the  Queen's  EnglvJi ',  by  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury :  '  Good  Words\  March,  1863. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

language  you  had  employed ;  and  as,  when 
I  privately  wrote  to  you  respecting  it, 
you  justified  your  use  of  the  expressions 
to  which  I  had  referred,  I  am  desirous  of 
knowing  whether  such  expressions  are 
really  allowable  in  writings,  and  especially 
whether  they  are  allowable  in  an  essay 
which  has  for  its  object  the  exposure  and 
correction  of  literary  inaccuracies.  I  there- 
fore publish  this  my  second  letter  to  you  ; 
and  I  do  so  to  draw  forth  criticism  upon 
the  rules  involved  in  this  question ;  that, 
the  light  of  various  opinions  being  made 
to  converge  upon  these  rules,  their  value 
or  their  worthlessness  may  thereby  be 
manifested.  I  make  no  apology  for  this 
course;  for  when,  by  your  violations  of 
syntax  and  your  defence  of  those  viola- 
tions, you  teach  that  Campbell's  '  Philoso- 
phy of  Rhetoric  \  Kames's  '  Elements  of 
Criticism ',  and  Blair's  *  Lectures  on  Rhe- 
toric and  Belles  Lettres '  are  no  longer  to 
be  our  guides  in  the  study  of  the  English 
language,  no  apology  is  needed  from  me 
for  asking  the  public  whether  they  con- 
firm the  opinion  that  these  hitherto  ac- 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  8 

kiiowledged  authorities  should  be  super- 
seded. 

To  spread  this  enquiry  widely  is  the 
more  necessary,  because,  on  account  of 
the  position  which  you  hold,  and  the 
literary  reputation  which  you  enjoy,  your 
modes  of  expression,  if  suiFered  to  pass 
unchallenged,  will,  probably,  by-and-by  be 
quoted  in  justification  of  the  style  of  other 
writers  who  shall  presume  to  damage  by 
example,  if  not  by  precept,  the  highway 
of  thought  over  which  all  desire  to 
travel. 

By  influential  example  it   is  that   Ian- The  pov/er 

*'  -^  of  example. 

guages  are  moulded  into  whatever  form 
they  take ;  therefore,  according  as  example 
is  for  good  or  for  evil,  so  will  a  language 
gain  in  strength,  sweetness,  precision,  and 
elegance,  or  will  become  weak,  harsh, 
unmeaning,  and  barbarous.  Great  writers 
may  make  or  may  mar  a  language.  It  is 
with  them,  and  not  with  grammarians, 
that  the  responsibility  rests  ;  for  language 
is  what  custom  makes  it ;  and  custom  is, 
has  been,  and  always  will  be,  more  influ- 
enced by  example  than  by  precept. 


4  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

bell  on°the       ^^'  ^Jampbell,  speaking  of  the  formation 
formation    ^^  languages,  justly  says :  * — "  Language 
"  is  purely  a  species  of  fashion,  in  which 
"  by  the  general,  but  tacit,  consent  of  the 
"  people  of  a  particular  state  or  country, 
"  certain  sounds  come  to  be  appropriated 
"  to   certain  things   as    their    signs,   and 
"  certain  ways  of  inflecting  and  combining 
"  those  sounds  come  to  be  established  as 
"  denoting    the    relations   which    subsist 
"among  the  things  signified.    It  is  not 
"  the  business  of  grammar,  as  some  critics 
"  seem  preposterously  to  imagine,  to  give 
"  law  to  the  fashions  which  regulate  our 
"  speech.     On  the  contrary,  from  its  con- 
"  formity  to  these,  and  from  that  alone,  it 
"  derives  all  its  authority  and  value.    For, 
"  what  is  the  grammar  of  any  language  ? 
"  It  is  no  other  than  a  collection  of  general 
"  observations  methodically  digested,  and 
"  comprising  all  the  modes  previously  and 
"  independently  established,  by  which  the 
"  significations,   derivations,   and    combi- 
"  nations  of  words  in  that  language  are 

*  Campbell's  '  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric ',  vol.  i,  book 
2.  chap.  1,  2. 


THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"ascertained.  It  is  of  no  consequence 
"here  to  what  causes  originally  these 
"  modes  or  fashions  owe  their  existence — 
"  to  imitation,  to  reflection,  to  affectation, 
"  or  to  caprice  ;  they  no  sooner  obtain  and 
"  become  general  than  they  are  the  laws 
"  of  the  language,  and  the  grammarian's 
"  only  business  is  to  note,  collect,  and 
"methodise  them."  "'But,'  it  may  be 
"  said,  '  if  custom,  which  is  so  capricious 
" '  and  unaccountable,  is  everything  in 
"  '  language,  of  what  significance  is  either 
"  '  the  grammarian  or  the  critic  V  Of 
"  considerable  significance  notwithstand- 
"  ing ;  and  of  most  then,  when  they  con- 
"fine  themselves  to  their  legal  depart- 
"  ments,  and  do  not  usurp  an  authority 
"that  does  not  belong  to  them.  The 
"  man  who,  in  a  country  like  ours, 
"should  compile  a  succinct,  perspicuous, 
"  and  faithful  digest  of  the  laws,  though 
"no  lawgiver,  would  be  universally  ac- 
"knowledged  to  be  a  public  benefactor. 
"  How  easy  would  that  important  branch 
"  of  knowledge  be  rendered  by  such  a 
"  work,  in  comparison  with  what  it  must 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


'Thou" and 
'  thee  ". 


'  be,  when  we  have  nothing  to  have  re- 
'  course  to,  but  a  labyrinth  of  statutes, 
'  reports,  and  opinions.  That  man  also 
'  would  be  of  considerable  use,  though 
'  not  in  the  same  degree,  who  should 
'  vigilantly  attend  to  every  illegal  practice 
'  that  was  beginning  to  prevail,  and  should 
'evince  its  danger  by  exposing  its  con- 
'trariety  to  law.  Of  similar  benefit, 
'  though  in  a  different  sphere,  are  gram- 
'mar  and  criticism.  In  language,  the 
'grammarian  is  properly  the  compiler 
'  of  the  digest ;  and  the  verbal  critic, 
'the  man  who  seasonably  notifies  the 
'  abuses  that  are  creeping  in.  Both  tend 
'  to  facilitate  the  study  of  the  tongue  to 
'strangers,  and  to  render  natives  more 
'perfect  in  the  knowledge  of  it,  to  ad- 
'vance  general  use  into  universal,  and 
'to  give  a  greater  stability  at  least,  if 
'  not  a  permanency,  to  custom,  that  most 
'mutable  thing  in  nature." 

I  have  quoted  these  passages  because 
they  have  direct  reference  to  the  subject 
under  consideration ;  for  I  do  not  find 
fault  with   the  critical  remarks  in  your 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

essay.  Many  of  them,  it  is  true,  are  not 
new ;  but  most  of  them  are  good,  and 
therefore  will  bear  re-perusal  ;  yet,  I 
must  say,  it  was  scarcely  necessary  to 
repeat  in  the  March  number  of  '  Good 
*  TFbrc?s',  the  meaning  of  "a^;oc«^^ow"  which 
Archbishoj)  Whately  had  given  in  the 
same  magazine  in  the  previous  August. 
And  so  far  from  its  being  "  so  well  known 
*'  a  fact "  that  we  reserve  the  singular  pro- 
nouns "«Aoi^"  and  "  ^/lee  "  ''^entirely  for 
"  our  addresses  in  prayer  to  Him  who  is 
"the  highest  Personality",  it  is  not  a 
fact.  These  pronouns  are  very  extensively 
and  very  properly  used  in  poetry,  even 
when  inanimate  objects  are  addressed  ;  as 
is  the  case  in  the  following  lines  from 
Coleridge's  ^Address  to  Mont  Blano  '.* — 

♦'  0  dread  and  silent  Mount !  I  gazed  upon  thee 
"  Till  tUou^  still  present  to  the  bodily  sense, 
"  Didst  vanish  from  my  thought :  entranced  in  prayer 
"  I  worshipped  the  Invisible  alone." 


However,  I  shall  not  notice  your  critical  influence  of 

popular 

remarks,  for  they  are  of  only  secondary  writers. 
importance.    Very  little  can  be  added  to 


8  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

the  canons  of  criticism  already  laid  down  ; 
very  much  may  be  done  for  the  perma- 
nent enriching  of  our  language,  by  popular 
writers  exercising  more  care  as  to  the 
examples  they  set  in  composition,  than  as 
to  the  lessons  they  teach  concerning  it. 

growing  But,  in  literature  especially,  it  has  al- 
ways been  so  much  easier  for  authors  to 
censure  than  to  guide  by  example,  and  it 
has  been  thought  by  them  so  much  better 
fun  to  break  other  authors'  windows  than 
to  stay  quietly  at  home  taking  care  of 
their  own,  that  the  throwing  of  stones  has 
long  been  a  favourite  amusement.  Nor 
do  we  object  to  it,  providing  two  things 
be  granted:  first,  that  the  glass  of  the 
windows  is  so  bad  that  the  objects  seen 
through  it  appear  distorted ;  and,  secondly 
that  in  no  spirit  of  unkindness  shall  the 
stones  be  thrown,  lest  you  not  only  break 
the  author's  windows,  but  also  wound  the 
author  himself. 

Persuasive       It  must  be  admitted  that  there   is  in 

teaching. 

your  essay  so  little  of  that  *'  sweetness  of 
"  the  lips  "  which  "  increaseth  learning  ", 
that  but  a  very  small  amount  of  good  can 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGZISK 

result  to  those  whom  you  think  to  be  most 
in  need  of  improvement.  You  speak  of 
"  the  vitiated  and  prete?itious  style  which 
^^ passes  current  in  our  newspapers  ".  You 
sneeringly  say,  ^^  In  a  leading  article  of 
" '  The  Times '  7iot  long  since,  was  this 
"  beautiful  piece  of  slipshod  EnglisN\'  then 
follows  the  quotation,  with  this  remark 
appended,  "  Here  we  see  faults  enough  he- 
^^sides  the  wretched  violations  of  grammar''''  j 
and,  "  these  writers  are  constantly  doing 
"  something  liJce  this  ".  *  Then  you  say, 
^''Sometimes    the   editors  of  our  papers 

*  "  When  it  is  considered  that  in  every  newspaper 
of  any  pretensions  there  are  articles,  letters,  and 
paragraphs,  from  thirty  or  fifty  different  pens,  there 
is  not  much  to  be  astonished  at  in  occasional  blunders. 
If  the  Dean  knew  more  of  newspaper  matters  he 
would  be  more  charitable  in  his  criticism.  Is  it  fair 
to  expect  in  a  leading  article  composed  at  midnight, 
against  time,  and  carried  off  to  the  printers  slip  by 
slip  as  it  is  written,  the  same  rhythmical  beauty  and 
accuracy  of  expression  as  in  any  essay  elaborated  by 
the  labour  of  many  days  for  a  quarterly  review? 
Yet  the  English  of  the  Dean,  corrected  and  recor- 
rected,  pales  before  that  of '  The  Times '  written  per- 
haps by  a  wearied  man  at  two  in  the  morning." — 
''The  Christian  News,'  Glasgow, 


10  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

'''' fall^  from  their  ignorance.,  into  absurd 
"  mistakes  ".  Certainly  not  a  very  liappy 
arranorement  of  words  in  which  to  remark 
upon  the  "absurd  mistakes"  of  other 
people ;  for  we  ought  to  be  as  careful 
what  our  sentences  suggest,  as  what  they 
affirm  ;  and  we  are  so  accustomed  to  speak 
of  people  falling  from  a  state  or  position, 
that  your  words  naturally  suggest  the 
absurb  idea  of  editors  falling  from  their 
ignorance. 
Editors  fall-      I   submit  it  to  the  reviewers  whether 

Ing  from 

rancV^"""^  your  Sentence  be  not  altogether  faulty. 
The  Avords,  "  from  their  ignorance  "  should 
not  come  after  "  fall ",  they  should  precede 
it.  But,  for  the  reason  just  given,  the 
word  "  from  "  is  objectionable  in  any  part 
of  the  sentence,  which  would  have  been 
better  written  thus,  Sometimes  our  editors, 
in  consequence  of  their  ignorance,  fall 
into  absurb  mistakes.  If  you  say  that 
the  defect  in  persj^icuity  is  removed  by 
the  punctuation,  I  answer,  in  the  language 
of  Lord  Karnes,  "  Punctuation  may  re- 
"move  an  ambiguity,  but  will  never 
"  produce  that  peculiar  beauty  which  is 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  11 

"perceived  when  the  sense  comes  out 
"clearly  and  distinctly  by  means  of  a 
"  happy  arrangement ".  The  same  high 
authority  tells  us  that  a  circumstance 
ought  never  to  be  placed  between  two 
capital  members  of  a  sentence ;  or  if  it 
be  so  placed,  the  first  word  in  the  con- 
sequent member  should  be  one  that 
cannot  connect  it  with  what  precedes.  In 
your  sentence,  unfortunately,  the  connec- 
tion is  perfect,  and  the  suggestion  of  a 
ridiculous  idea  is  the  result. 

Nor  is  this  the   only  instance   of  this "  Composi- 

tors  with- 

kind  of  faulty  arrangement.  You  say,  gJJ^^fg®  ^ 
"The  great  enemies  to  understanding Sf""''' 
"  anything  printed  in  our  language  are 
"  the  commas.  And  these  are  inserted  by 
"the  comjDOsitors  without  the  slightest 
"  compunction  ".  I  should  say  that  the 
great  enemy  to  our  understanding  these 
sentences  of  yours  is  the  want  of  commas ; 
for  though  the  defective  position  of  words 
can  never  be  compensated  for  by  commas, 
they  do  frequently  help  to  make  the  sense 
clearer,  and  would  do  so  in  this  instance. 
Hpw  can  we  certainly  know  that  the  words 


12  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  without  the  slightest  compunction"  refer 
to  "  inserted  ?"  They  seem,  by  their  order 
in  the  sentence,  to  describe  the  character 
of  the  compositors  ; — they  are  "  without 
"the  slightest  compunction".  And  then 
that  word  "  compunction  "/  what  an  ill- 
chosen  word  of  which  to  make  use  when 
speaking  of  punctuation.  But  this  is  only 
on  a  par  with  what  occurs  in  the  first 
paragraph  of  your  essay,  where  you  sjDcak 
of  people  "  mending  their  loays  "/  and  in 
the  very  next  paragraph  you  speak  of  the 
"Queen's  highway ''\  and  of  ^^ byroads'''* 
and  '^private  roads  ". 
•'  composi-      But  to  return.    ISTot  only  do  you  describe 

tors  with- 
out any      the  poor  compositors  as  beings  "  without 

"  any  compunction  " ;  but  also  as  beings 

"  without  any  mercy  ".   The  sentence  runs 

thus :  "  These  *  shrieks ',  as  they  have  been 

"called,  are  scattered  up  and  down  the 

"  page  by  compositors  without  any  mercy". 

I  have  often  heard  of  "  printers  devils ", 

and  I  imagined  them  to  be  the  boys  who 

assist  in  the  press-room;    but    if    your 

description  of  compositors  is  true,  these 

are  beings  of  an  order  very  little  superior. 


THE  DEAIPS  ENGLISH.  13 

By-the-way,  while  noticing  these  ghostly  tJ^e'^^o?"*^® 
existences,  I  may  just  remark  that  imme- 
diately after  your  speaking  of  "  things 
"  without  life  ",  you  startle  us  with  that 
strange  sentence  of  yours — "  I  will  intro- 
"  cluce  the  body  of  my  essay  ".  Introduce 
the  body  !  We  are  prepared  for  much  in 
these  days  of  *'  sensation  "  writing ;  and 
the  very  prevalence  of  the  fashion  for  that 
style  of  composition  predisposes  any  one 
of  a  quick  imagination,  to  believe  for  the 
instant  that  your  essay  on  the  ^  Queen'' s 
*  English '  is  about  to  turn  into  a  ^Strange 
'  Story  \ 

"  But  to  be  more  serious  "  as  you  say  in  a  man 

losing  his 

your  essay,  and  then  immediately  give  ^s  SJg*'^^'^  g"g 
a  sentence  in  which  the  grave  and  the 
grotesque  are  most  incongruously  blended. 
I  read,  "  A  man  does  not  lose  his  mother 
"  now  in  the  papers  ".  I  have  read  figur- 
ative language  which  spoke  of  lawyers 
being  lost  in  their  papers,  and  students 
being  buried  in  their  books ;  but  I  never 
read  of  a  man  losing  his  mother  in  the 
papers :  therefore  I  do  not  quite  see  what 
the    adverb   "note"  has    to   do    in    the 


14  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

sentence.  Ah  !  stop  a  moment.  You  did 
not  mean  to  speak  of  a  man  losing  his 
mother  in  the  papers.  I  perceive  by  the 
context  that  what  you  intended  to  say 
was  something  of  this  sort :  According  to 
the  papers,  a  man  does  not  now  lose  his 
mother  ;  but  that  is  a  very  different  thing. 
How  those  little  prepositions  "from"  and 
"in"  do  perplex  you;  or  rather,  how 
greatly  your  misuse  of  them  perplexes 
your  readers. 
JJsuse  of  With  the  adverbs  also  you  are"  equally 
at  fault.  You  say,  "  In  all  abstract  cases 
"  where  we  merely  speak  of  numbers  the 
"  verb  is  better  singular."  Here  the  placing 
of  the  adverb  "merely"  makes  it  a 
limitation  of  the  following  word  "  speak  "  ; 
and  the  question  might  naturally  enough 
be  asked,  But  what  if  we  write  of  num- 
bers? The  adverb,  being  intended  to 
qualify  the  word  "numbers  ",  should  have 
been  placed  immediately  after  it.  The 
sentence  would  then  have  read,  "In  all 
"  abstract  cases  where  we  speak  of  num- 
"  bers  merely,  the  verb  is  better  singular." 
So  also  in   the   sentence,  "  I  only  bring 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  15 

**  forward  some  things  ",  the  adverb  "only" 
is  similarly  misplaced ;  for,  in  the  follow- 
ing sentence,  the  words  "Plenty  more 
"  might  be  said  ",  show  that  the  "  only  " 
refers  to  the  "  some  things ",  and  not  to 
the  fact  of  your  bringing  them  forward. 
The  sentence  should  therefore  have  been, 
*'I  bring  forward  some  things  only.  Plenty 
"more  might  be  said."  Again,  you  say 
"  Still,  though  too  many  commas  are  bad, 
"  too  few  are  not  without  inconvenience 
"also."  Here  the  adverb  "also",  in 
consequence  of  its  position,  applies  to 
"  inconvenience  " ;  and  the  sentence  signi- 
fies that  too  few  commas  are  not  with- 
out inconvenience  besides  being  bad. 
Doubtless,  what  you  intended  was,  "  Still, 
"  though  too  many  commas  are  bad,  too 
"  few  also  are  not  without  inconvenience." 

Blair,  speaking  of  adverbs,  says,  "  The  Dr.  Biair  on 

adverbs. 

"  fact  is,  with  respect  to  such  adverbs  as 
"  only^  loholly,  at  least^  and  the  rest  of  that 
"tribe,  that,  in  common  discourse,  the 
"  tone  and  emphasis  we  use  in  pronoun- 
"  cing  them,  generally  serves  to  show  their 
"reference,   and    to  make    the    meaning 


16  THE  DEAN'8  ENGLISH. 

"  clear ;  "and  hence  we  acquire  the  habit 
"  of  throwing  them  in  loosely  in  the 
"  course  of  a  period.  But  in  writing ", 
[and  I  wish  you  to  notice  this,  because  it 
bears  upon  a  remark  in  your  letter  to  me,] 
"  But  in  writing^  where  a  man  speaks  to 
"  the  eye  and  not  to  the  ear^  he  ought  to  he 
'•'-more  accurate.,  and  so  to  connect  those 
^^adverhs  with  the  words  which  they  qualify 
"  as  to  put  his  meaning  out  of  doubt  upon 
"  the  first  inspection.'^'' 
On  the  con-      In  my  former  letter  to  you,  I  quoted  as 

sti-uction  of  1       T  1      T  1 

Bentences.  the  basis  of  somc  remarks  1  had  to  make, 
the  well  known  rule  that  "  those  parts  of 
"  a  sentence  which  are  most  closely  con- 
"nected  in  their  meaning,  should  be  as 
"  closely  as  possible  connected  in  position." 
In  your  reply  you  speak  of  my  remarks 
as  "  the  fallacious  application  of  a  supposed 
"rule."  Whether  my  application  of  the 
rule  be  fallacious  or  not,  let  others  judge 
from  this  letter ;  and  as  to  whether  the  rule 
itself  be  only  "a  supposed  rule",  or  whether 
it  is  not,  on  the  contrary,  a  standard  rule 
emanating  from  the  highest  authorities,  let 
the  following  quotations  decide. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  \n 

I  read  in  Karnes's  '  Elements  of  Criti-  Lord 

Karnes's 

'•cism\  "Words  expressing  things  connected  opinion- 
"in  the  thought,  ought  to  be  placed  as 
"  near  together  as  possible." 

I  read  in  Campbell's  '  Fhilosophy  of  i>r.  Camp- 
'  BhetoriG\  "  In  English  and  other  modern  opinion, 
"languages,  the  speaker  doth  not  enjoy 
"  that  boundless  latitude  which  an  orator 
"  of  Athens  or  of  Rome  enjoyed  when 
"  haranguing  in  the  language  of  his  coun- 
"try.  With  us,  who  admit  very  few 
"  inflections,  the  construction,  and  conse- 
"  quently  the  sense,  depends  almost  entirely 
"  on  the  order P 

I  read  in  Blair's  '  Lectures  on  Rhetoric  cr-  Biair'a 

opinion. 

'  and  Belles  Lettres*,  "  The  relation  which 
"  the  words,  or  members  of  a  period,  bear 
"to  one  another,  cannot  be  pointed  out 
"in  English,  as  in  Greek  or  Latin,  by 
"  means  of  terminations  ;  it  is  ascertained 
"only  by  the  position  in  which  they 
"stand.  Hence  a  capital  rule  in  the 
"  arrangement  of  sentences  is,  that  the 
"  words  or  members  most  nearly  related 
"should  be  placed  in  ♦the  sentence,  as 
"  near  to  each  other  as  possible ;   so  as 

C 


18  .  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  to  make  their  mutual  relation  clearly 
*'  appear." 
authorities  ^^^  ^^^  '  Murray's  Grammar''^  part  2, 
in  the  Appendix ;  likewise,  '  The  JEle- 
'"inents  of  English  Composition''^  by  David 
Irving,  LL.D.,  chapter  7  ;  and  the  '  Gram- 
'  mar  of  Rhetoric\  by  Alexander  Jamieson, 
LL.D.,  chapter  3,  book  3. 
SiTS'a-^°^  As  an  illustrative  example  of  the  vio- 
law^o^f  posi-  lation  of  this  rule,  take  the  following 
sentences.  "It  contained",  says  Swift, 
"  a  warrant  for  conducting  me  and  my 
"retinue  to  Traldragdubb  or  Trildrog- 
'*  drib,  for  it  is  pronounced  both  ways, 
"  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  hy  a  party 
"  of  ten  horse.''''  The  words  in  italics 
must  be  construed  with  the  participle 
"  conducting  ",  but  they  are  placed  so  far 
from  that  word,  and  so  near  the  word 
*'  pronounced  ",  that  at  first  they  suggest 
a  meaning  perfectly  ridiculous. 

Again,  in  the  course  of  a  certain  exam- 
ination which  took  place  in  the  House  of 
Commons  in  the  year  1809,  Mr.  Dennis 
Browne  said,  4he  witness  had  been 
"  ordered  to  withdraw  from  the  bar  in 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  19 

"consequence  of  being  intoxicated,  by 
"  the  motion  of  an  honourable  member." 
This  remark,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, produced  loud  and  general  laughter. 
The  speaker  intended  to  say,  that,  "  in 
"  consequence  of  being  intoxicated,  the 
"  witness,  by  the  motion  of  an  honourable 
"  member,  had  been  ordered  to  withdraw 
''  from  the  bar." 

A  similar  error  occurs  in  a  work  by 
Isaac  D'Israeli.  He  meant  to  relate  that, 
"  The  beaux  of  that  day,  as  well  as  the 
"  women,  used  the  abominable  art  of 
"  painting  their  faces " ;  but  he  writes, 
"The  beaux  of  that  day  used  the  abo- 
"  minable  art  of  painting  their  faces,  as 
"  well  as  the  women  " ! 

In  a  recent  number  of  a  fashionable 
morning  paper,  there  is  a  paragraph  headed 
'  A  Dangerous  Cow',  of  which  it  is  said  not 
only  that  it  tossed  several  per so7is,  but  that 
"  it  plunged  and  tossed  about  the  street  in 
"  a  formidable  manner".  It  must  indeed 
have  been  a  dangerous  cow. 

In  your  essay,  you  say,  "I  remember 
"  when  the  French  band  of  the  '  Guides ' 

c  2 


20  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

'■^  were  in  this  country,  reading  in  the 
"  'Illustrated  News '  ".  Were  the  French- 
men, when  in  this  country,  reading  in  the 
*  Illustrated  JVeios '  ?  or  did  you  mean  that 
f/ou  remembered  reading  in  the  'Illustrated 
'JSTeics'*,  when  the  band  of  the  French 
Guides,  &c.  ? 

You  also  say,  *'  It  is  not  so  much  of 
"  the  great  highway  itself  of  the  Queen's 
"  English  that  I  would  now  speak,  as  of 
"  some  of  the  laws  of  the  road ;  the  by- 
"  rules,  to  compare  small  things  with 
''  great,  which  hang  up  framed  at  the 
"  various  stations  ".  What  are  the  great 
things  which  hang  up  framed  at  the 
various  stations  ?  If  you  meant  that 
the  by-rules  hang  up  framed  at  the 
various  stations,  the  sentence  would  have 
been  better  thus,  "  the  laws  of  the  road ; 
"  or,  to  compare  small  things  with  great, 
"  the  by-rules  which  hang  up  framed  at 
"  the  various  stations  ". 

So,  too,  in  that  sentence  which  intro- 
duces the  body  of  your  essay,  you  speak  of 
"  the  reluctance  wh^ch  we  in  modern 
*'  Europe  have  to  giving  any  prominence 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  21 

"  to  the  personality  of  single  individuals 
"  in  social  intercourse " ;  and  yet  it  was 
evidently  not  of  single  individuals  in 
social  intercourse  that  you  intended  to 
speak,  but  of  giving,  in  social  inter- 
course, any  prominence  to  the  person- 
ality of  single  individuals.  Your  lan- 
guage expresses  a  meaning  different  from 
that  which  was  intended :  just  as  does 
Goldsmith's  language  when,  in  the  fol- 
lowing tautological  sentence,  he  says, 
"  The  Greeks,  fearing  to  be  surrounded 
"  on  all  sides,  wheeled  about  and  halted, 
"  with  the  river  on  their  backs."  Talk 
of  Baron  Munchausen !  Why,  here  was 
an  army  of  Munchausens.  They  ^'-wheeled 
"  about  cmd  hcdted^  vnth  the  river  on  their 
''  backs:' 

Once  more,  you  say,  "  When  I  hear  a  a  sentence 

with  a 

"  person  use  a  queer  expression,  or  pro-  squinting 

•^  J.  A  '  A  construc- 

*' nounce  a  name  in  reading  differently  *^°"- 
"from  his  neighbours,  it  always  goes 
"  down,  in  my  estimate  of  him,  with  a 
"  mimis  sig7i  before  it — stands  on  the  side 
"  of  deficit,  not  of  credit."  Poor  fellow  ! 
So  he  falls  in   your  estimation,  merely 


22  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

because  when  "  reading  diiFerently  from 
"his  neighbours,"  you  hear  him  "pro- 
"  nounce  a  name  ".  Would  you  have  him 
})ass  over  the  names  without  pronouncing 
them  ?  The  fact  is,  that  in  the  very 
Avords  in  which  you  censure  a  small  fault 
of  another  person,  you  expose  for  censure 
a  greater  fault  of  your  own.  The  pro- 
nunciation of  proper  names  is  a  subject 
upon  which  philologists  are  not  in  every 
case  unanimous ;  and  to  differ  where 
the  wise  are  not  agreed,  if  it  be  a  fault, 
cannot  be  a  great  fault;  but  to  publish 
a  sentence  like  yours,  having  in  it  a 
clause  with  what  the  French  call  a 
''squinting  construction",*  is  to  commit 
a  fault  such  as  no  one  would  expect  to 
find  in  '  A  Plea  for  the  Queen's  English  \ 
The  words  "  in  reading  ",  look  two  ways  at 
once,  and  may  be  construed  either  with  the 
words  which  precede,  or  with  those  which 
follow.  We  may  understand  you  to  say, 
"  pronounce  a  name  in  reading  ";  or,  "  in 
"  reading  differently  from  his  neighbours". 

*  "  CoTistmction  louche  ". 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  23 

A  more  striking  example  of  this  ludicrous 
error  could  scarcely  have  been  given. 

Dr.    Campbell,  in   speakino^   of  similar  ?'"•  camp- 
••■        '  ■•■  ^  bell  on  con- 

instances  of  bad  arrangement,  says,  "  In  ambigSty. 
"  all  the  above  instances  there  is  what 
"may  be  justly  termed  a  constructive 
"  ambiguity ;  that  is,  the  words  are  so 
"  disposed  in  point  of  order,  as  to  render 
"  them  really  ambiguous,  if,  in  that  con- 
"  struction  which  the  expression  first  sug- 
"  gests  any  meaning  were  exhibited.  As 
"  this  is  not  the  case,  the  faulty  order  of 
"  the  words  cannot  properly  be  considered 
"  as  rendering  the  sentence  ambiguous, 
"but  obscure.  It  may  indeed  be  argued 
"that,  in  these  and  the  like  examples, 
"  the  least  reflection  in  the  reader  will 
"  quickly  remove  the  obscurity.  But 
"  why  is  there  any  obscurity  to  be  re- 
"  moved  ?  Or  why  does  the  writer  require 
"  more  attention  from  the  reader,  or  the 
"  speaker  from  the  hearer,  than  is  abso- 
"lutely  necessary?  It  ought  to  be  re- 
"  membered,  that  whatever  application  we 
"  must  give  to  the  words,  is,  in  fact,  so 
"  much  deducted  from  what  we  owe  to 


24  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  the  sentiments.     Besides,  the  eifort  that 
"  is  exerted  in  a  very  close  attention  to 
"  the  language,  always  weakens  the  effect 
*'  which  the  thoughts   were   intended  to 
*'  produce  in  the  mind.     '  By  perspicuity', 
"  as  Quintillian  justly  observes,  '  care  is 
"  '  taken,  not  that  the  hearer  may  under- 
*' '  stand,   if  he   will,   but  that  he   must 
" '  understand,  whether  he  will   or  not.'* 
"  Perspicuity,    originally    and     properly, 
"implies   transparency.,  such  as  may  be 
"  ascribed   to   air,   glass,   water,   or    any 
*'  other  medium  through  which  material 
"  objects  are  viewed.     From  this  original 
"  and    proper    sense   it   has   been    meta- 
"phorically    applied    to    language;    this 
"  being,  as  it  were,  the  medium  through 
"  which    we    perceive    the    notions    and 
"  sentiments  of  a  speaker.     Now,  in  cor- 
"poreal   things,  if  the   medium  through 
"  which   we   look   at   any   object   is   per- 
"  fectly  transparent,  our  whole  attention 
"  is  fixed  on  the  object ;  we  are  scarcely 
"  sensible  that  there  is  a  medium  Avhich 
"  intervenes,  and  we  can  hardly  be  said 
*  '■Imtit '.  lib.  viii.  cap.  2. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH  25 

''to  perceive  it.  But  if  there  is  any 
"  fla^y  in  the  medium,  if  we  see  through 
"  it  but  dimly,  if  the  object  is  imper- 
"  fectly  reiH'esented,  or  if  we  know  it  to 
"be  misrepresented,  our  attention  is  im- 
"  mediately  taken  off  the  object  to  the 
"  medium.  We  are  then  anxious  to  dis- 
"  cover  the  cause,  either  of  the  dim  and 
"  confused  representation,  or  of  the  mis- 
"  representation,  of  things  which  it  ex- 
"  hibits,  that  so  the  defect  in  vision  may 
"  be  supplied  by  judgmisnt.  The  case  of 
"  language  is  precisely  similar.  A  dis- 
"  course,  then,  excels  in  perspicuity  when 
"the  subject  engrosses  the  attention  of 
"  the  hearer,  and  the  diction  is  so  little 
"minded  by  him,  that  he  can  scarcely 
"be  said  to  be  conscious  it  is  through 
"  this  medium  he  sees  into  the  speaker's 
"  thoughts.  On  the  contrary,  the  least 
"  obscurity,  ambiguity,  or  confusion  in  the 
"  style,  instantly  removes  the  attention 
"from  the  sentiment  to  the  expression, 
"  and  the  hearer  endeavours,  by  the  aid  of 
"  reflection,  to  correct  the  imperfections 
"  of  the  speaker's  language." 


26  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

rerspicuity.  jj^  contending  for  the  law  of  position 
as  laid  down  by  Lord  Karnes,  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, and  others,  I  do  so  on  the  ground 
that  the  observance  of  this  law  contri- 
butes to  that  most  essential  quality  in 
all  writings, — perspicuity  ;  and  although 
I  would  not  on  any  account  wish  to  see 
all  sentences  constructed  on  one  uniform 
plan,  I  maintain  that  the  law  of  position 
must  never  be  violated  when  such  molation 
would  in  any  way  obscure  the  meaning.  Let 
your  meaning  still  be  obvious,  and  you 
may  vary  your  mode  of  expression  as  you 
please ;  and  your  language  will  be  the 
richer  for  the  variation.  Let  your  mean- 
ing be  obscure,  and  no  grace  of  diction, 
nor  any  music  of  a  well-turned  period, 
will  make  amends  to  your  readers  for 
their  being  liable  to  misunderstand  you. 

Rmpiiasis.  In  noticing  my  remarks  upon  this  part 
of  the  subject,  you  say,  ''The  fact  is, 
*'  the  rules  of  emphasis  come  in,  in  in- 
*'  terruption  of  your  supposed  general  law 
"  of  position."  Passing  over  the  inelegant 
stuttering,  "  ^V^,  m,  w,"  in  this  sentence, 
I  reply  to  your  observation.     The   rules 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  21 

of  emphasis,  and  what  you  are  pleased 
to  call  "the  supposed  general  law  of 
"position",  are  entirely  independent  of 
each  other,  and  can  no  more  clash  than 
two  parallel  lines  can  meet.  The  rules 
of  emphasis  do  not  come  "  m,  in  in- 
"  terruption  of  the  general  law  of  position." 
A  sentence  ought,  under  all  circumstances, 
to  be  constructed  accurately,  whatever 
may  chance  to  be  the  emphasis  with 
which  it  will  be  read.  A  faulty  construc- 
tion may  be  made  intelligible  by  emphasis, 
but  no  dependence  on  emphasis  will 
justify  a  faulty  construction.  Besides, 
if  the  sentence  is  ambiguous,  how  will 
emphasis  assist  the  reader  to  the  author's 
meaning  ?  Where  shall  he  apply  the 
emphasis?  He  must  comprehend  what 
is  ambiguous,  in  order  that  what  is  am- 
biguous may  by  him  be  comprehended, 
which  is  an  absurdity. 

Emphasis  may  be  very  useful  to  me 
in  explaining  to  you  my  own  meaning,  or, 
in  explaining  another's  meaning  which  I 
may  understand ;  but  it  can  be  of  no  use 
to  me   to  explain  that  which  I  do  not 


28  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH 

understand.  When  to  correctness  of  posi- 
tion is  added  justness  of  emphasis,  your 
words  will  be  weighty;  but  when  the 
first  of  these  qualities  is  wanting,  not  the 
thunder  of  a  Boanerges  will  compensate 
for  the  deficiency. 
"  And  they       An  amusinsT  instance  of  wronsj  emphasis 

did  eat."      ^  °  ^  . 

in  reading  the  Scriptures  was  thus  given 
in  a  recent  number  of  '  The  Header  \  "  A 
*'  clergyman,  in  the  course  of  the  church 
"  service,  coming  to  verses  24  and  25  of 
*'  1  Sam.  xxviii,  which  describe  how  Saul, 
"who  had  been  abstaining  from  food  in 
"  the  depth  of  his  grief,  was  at  last 
"  persuaded  to  eat,  read  them  thus  :  '  And 
"  '  the  woman  had  a  fat  calf  in  the  house ; 
"  *  and  she  hasted,  and  killed  it,  and  took 
" '  flour,  and  kneaded  it,  and  did  bake 
" '  unleavened  bread  thereof :  and  she 
" '  brought  it  before  Saul,  and  before  his 
"  *  servants  ;  and  they  did  eat '  ". 
unaiiow-         Continuing  my  review  of  your  essay, 

able  ellipsis.  . 

I  notice  that  it  is  said  of  a  traveller  on 
the  Queen's  highway,  "He  bowls  along 
"it  with  ease  in  a  vehicle  which  a  few 
"  centuries  ago  would  have  been  broken 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  29 

'*  to  pieces  in  a  deep  rut,  or  come  to  grief 
"in  a  bottomless  swamp."  There  being 
here  no  words  immediately  before  "  come", 
to  indicate  in  what  tense  that  verb  is,  I 
have  to  turn  back  to  find  the  tense,  and 
am  obliged  to  read  the  sentence  thus, 
"  icould  have  been  broken  to  pieces  in  a 
"  deep  rut,  or  {would  have  been)  come  to 
"  grief  in  a  bottomless  swamp  " ;  for,  a  part 
of  a  complex  tense  means  nothing  with- 
out the  rest  of  the  tense  ;  therefore,  the 
rest  of  the  tense  ought  always  to  be  found 
in  the  sentence.  Nor  is  it  allowable,  as 
in  your  sentence,  to  take  ^^ar^  of  the  tense 
of  a  passive  verb  to  eke  out  the  meaning 
of  an  active  verb  given  without  any  tense 
whatever. 

Further   on,   I  find   you   speaking    of  The  source 

of  mistakes. 

"  that  fertile  source  of  mistakes  among 
"  our  clergy,  the  mispronunciation  of 
"  Scripture  proper  names ".  It  is  not 
the  "  mispronunciation  of  Scripture  pro- 
*'  per  names  "  which  is  the  source  of  mis- 
takes ;  the  mispronunciation  of  Scripture 
proper  names  constitutes  the  mistakes 
themselves   of  which   you  are  speaking; 


80  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

and  a  thing  cannot  at  the  same  time  be 
a  source,  and  that  which  flows  from  it.  It 
appears  that  what  you  intended  to  speak 
of  was  "that  fertile  source  of  mistakes 
"  among  our  clergy,  their  ignorance  of 
"  Scripture  proper  names,  the  mispronun- 
"  ciation  of  Avhich  is  quite  inexcusable." 
Prommcia-  Speaking  on  this  subject,  I  may  re- 
Greek        mark  that,  as  you   so  strongly  advocate 

proper 

names.  our  foUowiug  the  Grccks  in  the  pro- 
nunciation of  their  proper  names,  I  hope 
you  will  be  cohsistent  and  never  again 
in  reading  the  Lessons,  call  those  ancient 
cities  Samaria  and  Philadelphia  otherwise 
than  Samaria  and  Philadelphia. 
Should  the  I  was  much  amused  by  your  attempt 
ymmbw  to  set  UD  the  Church  ''Prayer  Book"*  as 

be  aspi-  *■  "^ 

an  authority  for  the  aspiration  of  the 
''A"  in  the  word  '''•  hum'bW'' ;  when,  on 
the  first  page  of  the  '  Morning  Prayer^ 
we  are  exhorted  to  confess  our  sins  "  with 
"  an  humble,  lowly,  penitent,  and  obedient 
"  heart ".  As  for  the  argument  which 
you  base  upon  the  alliterative  style  of  the 
'■Prayer  Booh'';  that  argument  proA^es 
too  much,  to  be  in  your,  favour ;   for  if, 


rated  ? 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  31 

because  we  find  the  words  "  humhle  "  and 
'-'- hearty''''  following  each  other,  we  are 
therefore  to  believe  that  it  was  the  in- 
tention of  the  compilers  of  our  beautiful 
ritual  that  we  should  aspirate  the  "  h  "  in 
"  humhle  ",  as  in  "  hearty  "y  what  was  the 
intention  of  the  compilers  when,  in  the 
supplication  for  the  Queen,  they  required 
us  to  pray  that  we  "  may  faithfully  serve, 
"  honour^  and  humbly  obey  her  "  ? 

Towards  the  end  of  your  essay  you  say,  "Odious" 
^^  Entail  is  another  poor  injured  verb.  "°^°'"""^-" 
"  ISTothing  ever  leads  to  anything  as  a 
"  consequence,  or  brings  it  about,  but  it 
"•  always  entails  it.  This  smells  strong  of 
"the  lawyer's  clerk".  It  was  a  very 
proper  expression  which  Horace  made  use 
of  when,  speaking  of  over-laboured  com- 
positions, he  said  that  they  smelt  of  the 
lamp ;  but  it  is  scarcely  a  fit  expression 
which  you  employ,  when,  speaking  of  a 
certain  word,  you  say,  this  smells  strong 
of  the  lawyer'^s  clerk.  Lawyers  or  their 
clerks  may  be  odious  to  you,  but  that  does 
not  give  you  the  right  to  use  an  expression 
which  implies  that  they  are  odorous. 


S2 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


The  test  j^^st  ^g  -y^^  mav  knoAV  by  the  way  in 

a  scholar's  j  j  j 

otTS      which  a  man  deals  with  the  small   trials 
anguage.     ^^  ^.^^^  j^^^  ^^^  j^^  j^^^  attained  a  mastery 

over  himself;  so  may  we  know  by  the 
way  in  which  a  writer  deals  with  the 
small  parts  of  speech,  how  far  he  has  at- 
tained a  mastery  over  the  language.  Let 
us  see  therefore  how  you  manage  the 
pronouns. 
Pronouns.  I  begin  by  noticing  a  remark  which,  in 
your  letter  to  me,  has  reference  to  this 
part  of  the  subject.  You  say,  respecting 
my  criticism  on  your  essay,  "  Set  to  work 
"  in  the  same  way  with  our  English  ver- 
"  sion  of  the  Bible,  and  what  work  you 
"  would  make  of  it " !  To  this  I  reply  : 
Our  English  version  of  the  Bible  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be,  on  the  whole,  excellent, 
whether  considered  with  respect  to  its 
faithfulness  to  the  originals,  or  with  re- 
spect to  its  purity  and  elegance  of  lan- 
guage. Its  doctrines  being  divine,  are, 
like  their  Author,  perfect ;  but  the  trans- 
lation, being  human,  is  frequently  obscure. 
You  bid  me  look  at  the  "  he  "  and  "  him  " 
in  Luke  xix,  3,  4,  5.     You  surely  do  not 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH,  33 

defend  the  construction  of  these  sentences  ? 
See  what  Dr.  Campbell  says  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  his  '  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric ', 
book  ii.  chap.  6.  "  It  is  easy  to  conceive 
"  that,  in  numberless  instances,  the  pro- 
noun '  he '  will  be  ambiguous,  when  two 
"  or  more  males  happen  to  be  mentioned 
"  in  the  same  clause  of  a  sentence.  In 
*'  such  a  case  Ave  ought  always  either  to 
"  give  another  turn  to  the  expression,  or 
'*  to  use  the  noun  itself,  and  not  the  pro- 
"  noun  ;  for  when  the  repetition  of  a  word 
"  is  necessary  it  is  not  offensive.  The 
"  translators  of  the  Bible  have  often  ju- 
"  diciously  used  this  method  ;  I  say 
"judiciously,  because,  though  the  other 
"  method  is  on  some  occasions  preferable, 
"  yet  by  attempting  the  other,  they  would 
"  have  run  a  much  greater  risk  of  destroy- 
*'  ing  that  beautiful  simplicity  which  is  an 
"eminent  characteristic  of  Holy  Writ. 
"  I  shall  take  an  instance  from  the  speech 
"  of  Judah  to  his  brother  Joseph  in 
"  Egypt.  '  We  said  to  my  lord,  The  lad 
" '  cannot  leave  his  father,  for  if  he  should 

D 


84  THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  '  leave  his  father,  his  father  would  die.' 
*'  Gen.  xliv,  22.  The  words  *  his  father  ' 
"  are,  in  this  short  verse,  thrice  repeated, 
"  and  yet  are  not  disagreeable,  as  they 
"  contribute  to  perspicuity.  Had  the 
"last  part  of  the  sentence  run  thus, 
*' '  if  he  should  leave  his  father  he 
" '  would  die ',  it  would  not  have  ap- 
"peared  from  the  expression,  whether 
"it  were  the  child  or  the  parent  that 
"  would  die  ". 

Misuse  of  ATI 

pronouns.  A  little  attention  to  this  matter  would 
have  saved  you  from  publishing  such  a 
paragraph  as  the  following; — "  Two  other 
"  words  occur  to  me  which  are  very  com- 
"  monly  mangled  by  our  clergy.  One  of 
"  these  is  '  covetous '  and  its  substantive 
"  '  covetousness  '.  I  hope  some  who  read 
"  these  lines  will  be  induced  to  leave  off 
"  pronouncing  them  '  covetious '  and  '  cove- 
" '  tiousness '.  I  can  assure  them  that 
"  when  they  do  thus  call  them^  one  at 
"  least  of  their  hearers  has  his  appre- 
"  ciation  of  their  teaching  disturbed  ".* 

*  The  italics  are  not  the  Dean's. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  r,rt 

You  have  so  confusedly  used  your  pro- 
nouns in  the  above  paragraph,  that  it 
may  be  construed  in  ten  thousand  different 
ways. 

In  some  sentences  your  pronouns  have  ^^'""^" 
actually  no  nouns  to  which  they  apply. 
For  example,  on  i^age  192,  "  That  nation  ". 
What  nation  ?  You  have  not  spoken  of 
any  nation  whatever.  You  have  spoken 
of  "  the  national  mind  ",  *'  the  national 
"  speech  ",  and  "  national  simplicity  ", 
things  pertaining  to  a  nation,  but  have 
not  spoken  of  a  nation  itself.  So  also,  on 
page  195,  "a  journal  published  by  these 
"  people  ".  By  what  people  ?  Where  is 
the  noun  to  which  this  relative  pro- 
noun refers?  In  your  head  it  may 
have  been,  but  it  certainly  is  not  in 
your  essay. 

The  relation  between  nouns  and  pro- 
nouns is  a  great  stumbling-block  to  most 
writers.  The  following  sentence  occurs  in 
Hallam's  '  Literature  of  Europe ' .' — "  Ko 
"  one  as  yet  had  exhibited  the  structure  of 
"  the    human    kidneys,   Yesalius    having 

D  2 


36  '  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  only  examined  tliem  in  dogs  ".  Human 
kidneys  in  dogs  !  * 

In  a  memoir  of  John  Leyden,  the 
shepherd  boy,  in  '  /Small  jBeginnings  y  o?', 
'•the  Way  to  Get  On\  there  is,  on  page 
104,  the  following  passage  : — "  The  Pro- 
"  fessor  soon  perceived,  however,  that  the 
"  intellectual  qualities  of  the  youth  were 
"  superior  to  those  of  his '  raiment ". 
Intellectual  qualities  of  raiment! 
A  pronoun       lu  your  cssay,  on  page  196,  you  say,  "  I 

too  widely- 
separated     "  have   known    cases  where    it   has    been 

"thoroughly  eradicated  ".  ^'  When  I  hear 
"  a  man  gets  to  his  its  ",  says  Wm.  Cob- 
bett,  "I  tremble  for  him".  Now  just 
read  backwards  with  me,  and  let  us  see 
how  many  singular  neuter  nouns  inter- 
vene before  we  come  to  the  one  to  which 
your  pronoun  "  it "  belongs.  "  A  tipple  ", 
"  a  storm  ",  "  the  charitable  explanation  ", 
"  the  well-known  infirmity  ",  "  the  way  ", 
"  ale  ",  "  an  apology ",  "  the  consterna- 
"  tion  ",  "  their  appearance  ",  "  dinner  ", 
"  the  house  ",   "  the  following  incident  ", 

*  Breen's  '  Modern  English  Lit&}'ature  \ 


from  its 
noun. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  37 

*'  his  ed ",  "  a  neighbouring  table  ",  '*  a 
"  South-Eastern  train  ",  "  a  Great  West- 
*'  ern  ",  "  Reading  ",  "  a  refreshment- 
*'  room  ",  "  the  ^atmosphere  ",  "  the  hair  ", 
"  the  air  ",  "  the  cholera  ",  "  his  opinion  ", 
"  this  vulgarism  ",  "  energy  ",  "  self-re- 
"  spect ",  "  perception  ",  "  intelligence  ", 
"  habit  ".  Here  we  have  it  at  last.  Only 
twenty-eight  nouns  intervening  between 
the  pronoun  "  it ",  and  the  noun  "  habit  " 
to  which  it  refers !  I  could  give  addi- 
tional examples  from  your  essay,  but 
surely  this  is  enough,  to  show  that  the 
schoolmaster  is  needed  by  other  people 
besides  the  Directors  of  the  Great  Western 
and  South-Eastern  railways. 

One  word  in  conclusion.  You  make 
the  assertion  that  the  possessive  pronoun 
"^;(5"  "never  occurs  in  the  English  ver- 
"  sion  of  the  Bible  ".  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  you  have  spoken  so  positively  on 
this  subject.  Probably  the  knowledge  of 
our  translators'  faithfulness  to  the  original 
text,  and  the  fact  of  there  being  in 
Hebrew   no   neuter,   may   have   led    you 


38  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

and  others  into  this  error;  but  look  at 
Leviticus  xxv,  5,  "That  which  groweth 
"  of  its  own  accord  ",  and  yoii  will  see  that 
"  its  ",  the  possessive  of  "  it ",  does  occur 
"  in  the  English  version  of  the  Bible  ". 

I  am,  Rev.  Sir, 

Yours  most  respectfully, 

G.  WASHINGTON  MOON. 

London.,  April  1863 


THE  DEAFS  ENGLISH. 


CRITICISM  No.   II; 

In  Reply  to  the  Dean  of  Canterbury's 
Rejoinder. 

What  !  is  it  possible  that  the  Dean  of  ^gT'" 
Canterbury  can  have  so  forgotten  the 
Scriptural  precept  "  ^e  courteous  ",  as  to 
speak,  in  a  public  meeting,  in  such  a 
manner  about  an  absent  antagonist,  that 
the  language  is  condemned  by  the  assem- 
bly, and  the  Dean  is  censured  by  the 
public  press  ?  Your  own  county  paper, 
Reverend  Sir, '  The  South-J^astern  Gazette,^ 
in  giving  a  report  of  your  second  lecture* 
in  St.  George's  Hall,  Canterbury,  makes 
the  following  observations  :   "  Mr.  G.  W. 

*  Subsequently    published    in     *  Good     Words  \ 
June,  1863. 


40  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  Moon  issued  a  pamphlet  controverting 
"many   of  the   points   advanced   by  the 
"Dean,   and  showing   that  the   reverend 
"gentleman  himself  had  been   guilty  of 
"the    very   violations    of   good    English 
"  which  he  had  so  strongly  condemned  in 
"  others.     The    greater    portion    of   the 
"  Dean's  lecture  on  Monday  evening  was 
"  devoted  to  an  examination  of  the  state- 
"ments  made  by  Mr.   Moon,  and   to   a 
"  defence  of  the   language  employed  by 
"  the  Dean  in  his  former  lecture.     Opin- 
"  ions   differ    as    to    the   success  of   the 
"reverend  gentleman,  many  of  his  posi- 
"  tions  being   called   in   question ;   while 
"  the  epithets  which  he  did  not  hesitate 
"  to   use    in   speaking    of   an   antagonist 
"possessing  some  acquaintance  with  the 
"  English   language,  were  generally  con- 
"  demned.     These    might    and    ought  to 
"  have  been   avoided,  especially  by   one 
"  whose  precepts  and  example  have  their 
"  influence,  for   good  or  for  harm,  upon 
"  the  society  in  which  he   moves.     *  Get 
"  ''loisdom^  get  understanding^  and  forget  it 
*-^'-not\  is  a  text  that  even  the  Dean  of 


Idiots.' 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  41 

"  Canterbury    might    ponder    over   with 
''  advantage  ". 

What,  too,  is  to  be  said  of  that  language 
which,  even  in  your  cahner  moments, 
you  have  not  scrupled  to  apply  to  me? 
You  had,  in  your  former  essay,*  worded 
a  sentence  so  strangely,  that  it  suggested 
a  meaning  perfectly  ludicrous.  I  called 
your  attention  to  this,  first  in  a  private 
letter,  and  afterwards  in  a  pamphlet,f 
and,  in  your  '  JPlea  for  the  Queeri's  Eng- 
^lish^  No.  II\  you  indignantly  exclaini, 
in  reference  to  my  remarks,  "  We  do  not 
*'  write  for  Idiots  ".  Thank  you  for  your 
politeness ;  I  can  make  all  excuses  for 
hasty  words  spoken  in  unguarded  mo- 
ments; but  when  a  gentleman  deliber- 
ately uses  such  expressions  in  prints  he 
shows,  by  his  complacent  self-sufficiency, 
how  much  need  he  has  to  remember  that 
it  is  possible  to  be  worse  than  even  an 
idiot.    "  Seest  thou  a  man  wise  in  his  own 

*  '  A  Plea  for  the  Queen/ s  English  \ — '  Good 
'Words',  March,  1863. 

f  The  previous  letter  is  a  re-publication  of  that 
pamphlet. 


42  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

*'  conceit  ?  there  is  more  lioi^e  of  a  fool 
"  than  of  him  ".  Prov.  xxvi,  12. 
I'btoTmai  Continuing  your  remarks  on  my  criti- 
oMhe  aSri-  cisms,  you  Say,  "  It  must  require,  to  speak 
Sag^s!'^^^"  "  in  the  genteel  language  which  some  of 
"  my  correspondents  uphold,  a  most  ahnor- 
'"''  mal  elongation  of  the  auricular  appen- 
"  dages,  for  a  reader  to  have  suggested  to 
"  his  mind  a  fill  from  the  sublime  height 
"  of  ignorance  down  into  the  depth  of  a 
"mistake."  I  spoke  of  editors  falling 
into  mistakes  :  it  remained  for  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury  to  add,  that  they  fell  down 
into  the  depth  of  a  mistake.  You  say  you 
do  not  w^rite  for  idiots ;  who  else  would 
imagine  that  it  were  possible  to  fall  up 
into  a  depth  ?  Reverting  to  your  expres- 
sion, '^abnormal  elongation  of  the  auricular 
"  appendages  ", — you  recommended  us,  in 
your  former  essay,  to  use  plainness  of 
language,  and  when  we  mean  a  spade,  to 
say  so,  and  not  call  it  '*  a  well-known  ob- 
"  long  instrument  of  manual  husbandry  ". 
I  wonder  you  did  not  follow  your  own 
teaching,  and,  in  plain  language,  call  me 
an  ass  ;  but  I  suppose  you  considered  the 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  43 

language  plain  enough,  and  certainly  it  is  : 
there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  your  meaning. 
I  must  leave  it  to  the  public  to  decide 
whether  I  have  deserved  such  a  distin- 
guished title.  Recipients  of  honours  do 
not  generally  trouble  themselves  about 
merit ;  but,  as  I  am  very  jealous  for  the 
character  of  him  who  has  thus  flatteringly 
distinguished  me;  and  as  some  captious 
persons  may  call  in  question  his  right  to 
confer  the  title  of  ass  y  I  shall  endeavour, 
in  the  following  pages,  to  silence  for  ever 
all  cavillers,  and  to  prove,  to  demonstra- 
tion, that  he  did  not  give  away  that 
which  did  not  belong  to  him. 

Of   my  former    letter,    you    say   that, "  No  case : 

*'  7     J  J  abuse  the 

when  you  first  looked  it  through,  it  re- p^aintifif." 
minded  you  of  the  old  story  of  the  attor- 
ney's endorsement  of  the  brief, — "No 
"case:  abuse  the  Plaintiff":  for,  the 
objections  brought  by  me  against  the 
matter  of  your  essay,  are  very  few 
and  by  no  means  weighty ;  as  I  have 
spent  almost  all  my  labour  in  criticisms 
on  your  style  and  sentences.  Precisely! 
I  wished  to  show,  by  your  own  writings, 


44  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

that  so  far  were  you  from  being  competent 
to  teach  others  English  composition,  that 
you  had  need  yourself  to  study  its  first  prin- 
ciples ;  but  there  is  no  abuse  whatever  in 
that  letter :  you  had  no  precedent  in  my 
remarks  for  your  language  ;  and  as  for  my 
having  made  but  few  objections  to  your 
essay,  I  will  at  once  give  you  convincing 
proof  that  it  was  not  because  I  had  no 
more  objections  to  make. 

I  had  written  the  following  paragraph 
before  your  second  essay  was  published ; 
and  although,  in  that  essay,  you  defend 
the  statement  you  had  previously  made,  I 
conceive  that  you  have  not  by  any  means 
established  your  position. 
How  the  cat     I  venture  to  assert  that,  what  we  say 

jumps.  '' 

figuratively  of  some  not  over-wise  people, 
we  may  say  literally  of  you, — "You  do 
"  not  know  how  the  cat  jumps " ;  for, 
what  do  you  tell  us  ?  You  tell  us  that  it 
is  wrong  to  say,  "  The  cat  jumped  on  to  the 
"  chair  ",  the  "  to  ",  you  remark,  "  being 
"  wholly  unneeded  and  never  used  by  any 
"  careful  writer  or  speaker,"  With  all  due 
deference  to  such  a  high  authority  on  such 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  45 

a  very  important  matter,  I  beg  leave  to 
observe  that,  when  we  say,  "The  cat 
"jumped  on  to  the  chair  ",  we  mean  that 
the  cat  jumped  from  somewhere  else  to 
the  chair,  and  alighted  07i  it ;  but  when 
Ave  say,  ''The  cat  jumped  on  the  chair", 
we  mean  that  the  cat  was  on  the  chair 
already,  and  that,  while  there,  she  jumped. 
The  circumstances  are  entirely  different ; 
and  according  to  the  difference  in  the 
circumstances,  so  should  there  be  a  dif- 
ference in  the  language  used  to  describe 
them  respectively.  It  is  evident  that  in 
watching  the  antics  of  puss,  you  received 
an  impulse  from  her  movements,  and  you 
yourself  jumped — to  a  lorong  conclusion?' 

*  The  '  Edinburgh  Review  \  after  objecting  to 
some  of  my  remarks  as  hypercritical,  says,  "  It  is  not 
*'  meant  that  all  Mr.  Moon's  comments  are  of  this 
"  kind.  The  Dean's  style  is  neither  particularly  ele- 
"  gant  nor  correct,  and  his  adversary  sometimes  hits 
"  him  hard  ;  besides  in  one  or  two  cases  successfully 
"disputing  his  judgments.  On  the  important  ques- 
"  tion  (for  instance)  whether  we  should  say  the  cat 
"jumped  '  on  to  the  chair ',  or  '  on  the  chair ',  we 
"  must  vote  against  the  Dean,  who  unjustly  condemns 
"  the  former  expression." 


46 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


"Honor", 
"  favor", &c. 


Again,  you  say,  "  I  pass  on  now  to 
'  spellmg^  on  which  I  have  one  or  two 
'remarks  to  make.  The  first  shall  be, 
'  on  the  trick  now  so  universal "  ['  so  uni- 
versal ' !  as  if  universality  admitted  of 
comparison]  "  across  the  Atlantic,  and  be- 
'  coming  in  some  quarters  common  among 
'  us  in  England,  of  leaving  out  the  '  u '  in 

the  termination  '  our  'y  writing  honor ^ 
'' favor ^  neighbor^  Savior,  <&c.  Now  the  ob- 
'  jection  to  this  is  not  only  that  it  makes 
'  very  ugly  words,  totally  unlike  anything 
'  in  the  English  language  before,  but  that 
'  it  obliterates  all  trace  of  the  derivation 
'  and  history  of  the  word."  ****  "The 
'  late  Archdeacon  Hare,  in  an  article  on 
'  English  orthography  in  the  '"Philological 
' '  Museum ',  some  years  ago,  expressed  a 
'  hope  that  '  such  abominations  as  honor 
'  *  and/avor  would  henceforth  be  confined 
' '  to  the  cards  of  the  great  vulgar.'  There 
'  we  still  see  them,  and  in  books  printed 
'  in  America ;  and  while  we  are  quite 
'  contented  to  leave  our  fashionable  friends 
'  in  such  company,  I  hope  we  may  none 
'  of  us  be  tempted  to  join  it."     I  will  tell 


THE  BEAl^'S  ENGLISH.  4Y 

you  where  else  these  "  abominations  "  may- 
be found,  besides  being  found  "  on  the 
*'  cards  of  the  great  vulgar  ".  They  may 
be  found  in  a  volume  of  poems  by  Henry 
Alford,  Dean  of  Canterbury ;  a  volume 
published,  not  in  America,  but  in  this 
country,  by  Rivingtons  of  Pall  Mall. 
The  following  is  a  specimen  taken  from 
his  *' Recent  Poems".  Two  verses  will 
suffice. 

RECENT    POEMS. 

A  WISH. 

"  Would  it  were  mine,  amidst  the  changes 
"  Through  which  our  varied  Ufetime  ranges, 
"  To  live  on  Providence's  bounty 
"  Down  in  &onxQ  favored  western  county. 


"  There  may  I  dwell  with  those  who  love  me  ; 
"  And  when  the  earth  shall  close  above  me, 
"  My  memory  leave  a  lasting  savor 
"  Of  grace  divine,  and  human  favor P 

It  is  true  that  there  is  a  preface  to  the 
volume,  and  that  it  accounts  for  the  spell- 
ing of  such  words,  by  informing  us  that 
many  of  the  poems  have  been  published 


48  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

in  America  ;  but  that  is  no  justification  of 
your  retaining  the  Transatlantic  spelling 
which  you  condemn.  I  guess  you  do  not 
mean  to  imply  that  it  is  with  poems  as 
with  people, — ^.e.,  that  a  temporary  resi- 
dence abroad  occasions  them  to  acquire 
habits  of  pronunciation,  &c.,  not  easily 
thrown  off  on  a  return  to  the  mother 
country  :  and  yet,  if  this  be  not  what  the 
preface  means  ;  pray,  what  does  it  mean  ? 
Perhaps,  as  mountain  travellers  brand  cer- 
tain words  on  their  alpenstocks,  to  show 
the  height  that  has  been  attained  by  those 
using  them,  so  you  have  thought  well  to 
favor  us  with  this  5a?^or  of  Americanisms, 
to  show  us  that  your  poems  have  had  the. 
ho7ior  of  being  republished  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  preface  serves 
only  to  make  matters  worse  ;  for  it  shows 
that  the  objectionable  form  of  orthography 
is  retained  with  your  knowledge  and  your 
sanction,  for  I  have  quoted  from  the 
"  Third  EditionP  How  is  this  ?  You 
say  that  the  spelling  in  question  should 
be   confined  to   the   cards  of  "-^  the  great 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  49 

"  vulgar  "y  and  you  yourself  adopt  that 
very  spelling  ! 

Before  quitting  the  subject  of  the  spell- ^'^^^^,1°^ 'J  „ 
ing  of  words  of  the  above  class,  I  beg 
leave  to  say  that  although  there  are,  in  our 
language,  certain  words  ending  in  "  oicr  ", 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  are  sometimes 
spelt  with  "  or "  only ;  as  honor,  favor, 
&c.,  without  interference  with  the  sense, 
honor  being  still  the  same  as  honoz^r,  and 
favor  the  same  as  favoi^r ;  there  is  one 
word  of  this  class,  the  meaning  of  which 
changes  with  the  change  of  spelling ; 
namely,  the  word  tenour^  which,  with  the 
"w",  means  continuity  of  state;  as  in 
'  Gray^s  Elegy\ — 

"  Along  tlie  cool  sequestered  vale  of  life 

"  They  kept  the  noiseless  tenour  of  their  way :" 

but  without  the  "w",  signifies  a  certain 
clef  in  music.  This  distinction  has  been 
very  properly  noticed  by  Dr.  Nugent  in 
his  ''English  and  French  Dictionary'' : 
there  the  word  stands  thus  : — 

"  Tenor,  alto^  m. 

"  Tenour,  maniere.  f." 


50  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

but  you,  after  lecturing  us  upon  the  im- 
propriety of  leaving  out  the  "z^"  in 
"  honour  ",  and  in  ^'■favour  ",  although  the 
omission  in  these  words  makes  no  altera- 
tion in  the  sense,  yourself  leave  the  "  u  " 
out  of  "^e^iowr",  and  speak,  on  page  429, 
of  the  "  toior  "  of  your  essay !  If  this  be 
not  straining  at  gnats  and  swallowing  a 
camel,  I  do  not  know  what  is.  What 
with  the  tenor  of  your  essay,  and  the  hass, 
or  baseness,  of  your  English,  you  certainly 
are  fiddling  for  us  a  pretty  tune.  It  I 
is  to  be  hoped  that  if  we  do  not  dance 
quite  correctly,  to  your  neAv  music,  you 
will  take  into  consideration  the  extreme 
difficulty  we  have  to  understand  the  con- 
tradictory instructions  we  have  received. 
Open  up".  Again,  you  censure  the  editors  of  news- 
papers for  using  the  expression  "  open  up  ", 
and  you  say,  "  what  it  means  more  than 
"  open  would  mean,  I  never  could  dis- 
"  cover  ".  Permit  me  to  say  that,  if  you 
look  at  home,  you  will  find  in  your  own 
periodical,  in  the  identical  number  of  it 
containing  this  remark  of  yours,  two 
Doctors  of  Divinity  using   the  very  ex- 


THE  JDEAIPS  ENGLISH.  51 

presBion  you  condemn  ;  a  third  Doctor  of 
Divinity  using  an  expression  very  similar ; 
and  a  fourth,  yourself^  using  an  expression 
which,  under  the  circumstances,  is  deserv- 
ing of  severe  censure.  To  begin  with  the 
Editor ;  the  Rev.  Norman  Macleod,  d.d., 
says,  on  page  204,  "  He  opens  up  in  the 
"  parched  desert  a  Avell  that  refreshes  us  ". 
The  Rev.  John  Caird,  d.d.,  says,  on  page 
237,  "  Now  these  considerations  may  open 
"  tip  to  us  one  view  of  the  expediency  of 
"  Christ's  departure  ".  The  Rev.  Thomas 
Guthrie,  d.d.,  says,  on  page  163,  "the 
"  past,  with  its  sin  and  folly,  rose  up  before 
"his  eyes".  I  suppose  you  would  say^ 
"  What  rose  up  means  more  than  rose  would 
"  mean  I  cannot  discover".  Probably  not, 
but  just  tell  us  what  you  mean  by  saying, 
on  page  197,  "Even  so  the  language  greio  "Grew up" 
"  up  ;  its  nerve,  and  vigour,  and  honesty, 
"  and  toil,  mainly  brought  doton  to  us  in 
"native  Saxon  terms".  If  the  word  up> 
be  redundant  in  the  quoted  sentences  of 
the  other  learned  Doctors,  what  shall  we 
say  of  it  in  your  own  f  In  their  expres- 
sions  there   is  sense ;  so,  too,  is  there  in 

E  2 


82  THE  DEAiTS  ENGLISH. 

your  expression  ;  but  it  is  a  kind  of  sense 
best  described  by  the  word  nonsense.  The 
language  greio  up  by  being  brought  down! 
Sure,  it  must  have  been  the  Irish  language 
that  your  honour  was  spaking  of. 
th?^^d°%  Now  for  your  reply  to  my  letter.  In 
EngUsh.  condemnation  of  your  wretched  English, 
I  had  cited  some  of  the  highest  authori- 
ties ;*  and  you  coolly  say,  "  I  must  freely 
"  acknowledge  to  Mr.  Moon,  that  not  one 
"  of  the  gentlemen  whom  he  has  named 
"  has  ever  been  my  guide,  in  whatever 
"study  of  the  English  language  I  may 
"have  accomplished,  or  in  what  little  I 
"  may  have  ventured  to  write  in  that  lan- 
"guage".  "I  have  a  very  strong  per- 
"  suasion  that  common  sense,  ordinary 
"  observation,  and  the  prevailing  usage  of 
"the  English  people,  are  quite  as  good 
"  guides  in  the  matter  of  the  arrangement 
"  of  sentences^  as  [are]  the  rules  laid  down 
t'  by  rhetoricians  and  grammarians."  Thus 
Ave  come  to  the  actual  truth  of  the  matter. 
It   appears  that    you  really  have   never 

*  Dr.  Campbell,  Lord  Karnes,  Hugh  Blair,  Lindley 
Murray,  and  others. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  68 

made  the  English  language  your  study  ! 

All  that  you  know  about  it  is  what  you 

have   picked   up   by   "  ordinary  observa- 

"tion";*    and    the    result   is,   that   you 

tell   us   it    is    correct    to    say,    ''He    «sSme'r 

"  iciser  than  me  "yf  and  that  you  speak 

of  "  a  decided  weak  point  "   in  a  man's  ^^^f  ^"^^^^^ 

character!     You  must  have   a  decidedly ^°^"*  ' 

weak  point  in  your  own  character,  to  set 

up  yourself  as  a  teacher  of  the  English 

language,  when   the  only  credentials    of 

qualification    that    you   can  prodaice   are 

such  sentences  as  these. 

You  sneer  at  "  Americanisms  ",  but  you 
would  never  find  an  educated  American 
who  would  venture  to  say,  ""It  is  me", 
for  "It  is  I";  or,  ''It  is  A^m",  for  "It 
"  is  he" ;  or,  "  different  to  ",  for  "  different 


*  "  It  is  notorious  that  at  our  public  schools 
"  every  boy  has  been  left  to  pick  up  his  English 
"  where  and  how  he  could." — Harrison  '  On  the 
'  English  Langxmge ',  preface,  p.  v. 

\  This  subject  was  ably  commented  on  by  a  writer 
in  the  ''English  Churchman' ,  and  by  a  writer  in 
the  '  Glasgow  Christian  News '.     See  Appendix. 


"  The  one 
rule  of  all 
others  ". 


84  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

omission  of  the  "h"  as  an  aspirate,  so  clearly 
distinguished  as  in  the  United  States.* 

With  regard  to  the  purport  of  your 
second  essay  on  the  Queen's  English, 
it  is,  as  I  expected  it  would  be,  chiefly  a 
condemnation  of  my  former  letter ;  but 
you  very  carefully  avoid  those  particular 
errors  which  I  exposed  ;  such  as,  "  Some- 
"  times  the  editors  of  our  ^^^qys  fall^  from 
^' their  ig7iora?ice,  into  absurd  mistakes"; 
and,  "A  man  does  not  lose  his  mother  now 
"m  the  23apers''\  There  are,  however,  in 
your  second  essay,  some  very  strange  speci- 
mens of  Queen's  English.  You  say,  "  The 
"  one  rule  of  all  others,  which  he  cites  ". 
Now  as,  in  defence  of  your  particular 
views,  you  appeal  so  largely  to  common 
sense,  let  me  ask,  in  the  name  of  that 
common  sense.  How  can  07ie  thing  be 
another  thing  ?  How  can  one  rule  be  of  all 
other  rules  the  one  which  I  cite  ?  If  this 
be  Queen's  English,  you  may  well  say  of 
the  authorities  I  quoted,  "  There  are  more 

*  See  '  Lectures  on  the  English  Language  \  by 
George  P.  Marsh,  Minister  of  the  United  States  at 
the  court  of  the  King  of  Italy. 


THE  DEAN'S  EJVGLFSff.  R5 

*^  things  in  the  English  language  than 
"  seem  to  have  been  dreamt  of  in  their 
"philosophy";  for  I  am  quite  sure  that 
they  never  dreamt  of  any  such  absurdi- 
ties. 

In  my  former  letter  I  drew  attention  coSnhan 
to  your  misplacing  of  adverbs  ;  and  now  ^^^^^' ' 
you  appear  to  be  trying,  in  some  instances, 
to  get  over  the  diiSculty  by  altogether 
omitting  the  adverbs,  and  supplying  their 
places  by  adjectives ;  and  this  is  not  a 
new  error  with  you.  You  had  previously 
said,  "  If  with  your  inferiors,  speak  no 
"  coarser  than  usual ;  if  with  your  superiors, 
"  no  finer P  "We  may  correctly  say,  "  a 
"certain  person  speaks  coarsely ^^ ;  but  it 
is  absurdly  ungrammatical  to  say,  "  he 
"  speaks  coarse ".''  In  your  second  essay, 
you  say,  "  the  words  nearest  connected  ", 
instead  of,  "the  words  most  nearly  con- 
"nected";  but  this  will  never  do;  the 
former  error,  that  of  position,  was  bad 
enough,  it  was  one  of  syntax ;  the  latter 
error,  that  of  substituting  one  part  of 
speech  for  another,  is  still  worse.     I  have  Adjectives 

and  ad- 

spoken  of  your  "  decided  weak  point ";  I  verbs. 


B6  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

will  now  give  another  example,  a  very 
remarkable  one,  for  it  is  an  example  of 
using  an  adjective  instead  of  an  adverb, 
in  a  sentence  in  which  you  are  speaking  of 
using  an  adverb  instead  of  an  adjective. 
You  say,  "The  fact  seems  to  be,  that  in 
"  this  case  I  was  using  the  verb  '  read '  in 
"  a  colloquial  and  scarcely  legitimate  sense, 
"  and  that  the  adverb  seems  necessary, 
*'  because  the  verb  is  not  a  strict  neuter- 
"  substantive."  We  may  properly  speak 
of  a  word  being  not  strictly  a  neuter-sub- 
stantive ;  but  we  cannot  properly  speak 
of  a  substantive  being  "  strict ".  So  much 
for  the  grammar  of  the  sentence  ;  now  for 
its  meaning.  Your  sentence  is  an  expla- 
nation of  your  use  of  the  word  '•'' oddly''\ 
in  the  phrase,  "  would  read  rather  oddly"; 
and  oddly  enough  you  have  explained  it ; 
'•'•\i30uld  read''''  is  the  conditional  form  of 
the  "oerh  ;  and  how  can  that  ever  be  either 
a  neiiter-suhstantive,  or  a  substantive  of  any 
other  hind  f 

In  your  former  essay  you  prepared  us 
to  expect  many  strange  things  ;  I  suppose 
we   are   to   receive  this  as  one  of  them. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  57 

You  told  us,  "  Plenty  more  might  be  said 
"  about  grammar ;  plenty  that  would 
"  astonish  some  teachers  of  it.  I  may 
"  say  something  of  this  another  time." 
Take  all  the  credit  you  like;  you  have 
well  earned  it ;  for  you  have  more  than 
redeemed  your  promise ;  you  have  aston- 
ished other  people  beside  teachers  of 
grammar. 

Again,  you  say,  "  The  whole  number  is  one'"^^'^* 
"  divided  into  two  classes :  the  first  class 
"  and  the  last  class.  To  the  former  of 
"  these  belong  three  :  to  the  latter,  one  '\ 
That  is,  "  To  the  former  of  these  belong 
"  three ;  to  the  latter  {belongl  one  "  ;  07ie 
belong!  "When,  in  the  latter  part  of  a 
compound  sentence,  we  change  the  nomi- 
native, we  must  likewise  change  the  verb, 
that  it  may  agree  with  its  nominative. 
The  error  is  repeated  in  the  very  next  sen- 
tence. You  say,  "  There  are  three  that  are 
"  ranged  under  the  description  '  first ' :  and 
"  one  that  is  ranged  under  the  description 
"  '  last '."  That  is,  "  Tliere  are  three  that 
"  are  ranged  under  the  description  '  first ' ; 
"  and  \there  are]  one  that  is  ranged  under 


&b  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  the  description  '  last'."  There  are  one  ! 
The  sentence  cannot  be  correctly  analysed 
in  any  other  way.  It  is  true  we  understand 
what  you  mean ;  just  as  we  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  childish  prattle  of  our 
little  ones ;  but,  because  your  sentence 
is  not  unintelligible,  it  is  not,  on  that 
account  the  less  incorrect.  It  appears 
to  me  that,  before  you  have  finished  a 
sentence,  you  have  forgotten  how  you 
began  it.  Here  is  another  instance.  You 
say,  "  We  call  a  '  cup-board '  a  '  cubbard ', 
*'  a  '  half-penny ',  a  '  haepenny ',  and  so  of 
"  many  other  compound  words ".  Had 
you  begun  your  sentence  thus,  We  speak  of 
a  "  cup-board  "  as  a  "  cubbard  ",  of  a 
"  half-penny  "  as  a  "  haepenny  "  it  would 
have  been  correct  to  say, "  aiid  so  o/many 
"  other  compound  words "  ;  because  the 
clause  would  mean,  "  and  so  [we  speak] 
"  of  many  other  compound  words  " ;  but 
having  begun  the  sentence  with,  "  TF(? 
"  call "  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to  finish  it 
with,  "  and  so  of^'' ;  for  it  is  saying,  "  and 
"  so  [we  call]  of  many  other  compound 
"  words  ". 


THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH.  59 

Elsewhere  you  say,  "  Call  a  spade  '  a 
" '  spade ',  not  an  oblong  instrument  of 
"  manual  husbandry  ;  let  home  be  '  home', 
"  not  a  residence ;  a  place  a  '  place  ',  not  a 
"  locality ;  and  so  of  the  rest."  What  is 
your  meaning  in  this  last  clause  ?  The 
sentence  is  undoubtedly  faulty,  whether 
the  words  ^^  and  so  of"*  are  considered  in 
connexion  with  the  first  clause,  or  in  con- 
nexion with  the  following  one.  In  the 
former  case  we  must  say,  "  and  [speaJc]  so 
"  of  the  rest  ";  and  in  the  latter  case  we 
must  say,  "  and  \let  us  siJeaJc]  so  of  the 
''  rest ".  In  neither  case  can  we  use  the 
word  "  call ",  with  which  you  have  begun 
your  sentence. 

Here  is  another  specimen  of  your  J'J^g^^^JJ[°* 
^Queen's  E7igUsh\  or  rather  of  the  Dean's  seif™^" 
English ;  a  specimen  in  which  the  verbs, 
past  and  present,  are  in  a  most  delightful 
state  of  confusion.  You  are  speaking  of 
your  previous  essay,  and  of  the  reasons 
you  had  for  writing  it ;  and  you  say,  "  If 
"I  had  believed  the  Queen's  English  to 
"  have  been  rightly  laid  down  by  the  dic- 
*'  tionaries  and  the  professors  of  rhetoric,  I 


60  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  need  not  have  troubled  myself  to  write 
"  about  it.  It  was  exactly  because  I  did 
"  not  believe  this,  but  found  both  of  them 
"  in  many  cases  going  astray,  that  I  ven- 
"tured  to  put  in  my  plea." 

Now,  '•''I need  noV^  is  present,  not  past ; 
and  it  is  of  the  past  you  are  speaking ;  you 
should  therefore  have  said,  '-''I  needed  not ", 
or,  '■^  I  should  not  have  needed  ".  And  the 
verb  "  troubled  ",  which  you  have  put  in 
the  past,  should  have  been  in  the  present ; 
just  as  the  verb  "  need  "  which  you  have 
put  in  the  present  should  have  been  in  the 
past ;  for  you  were  not  speaking  of  what 
you  would  not  have  needed  to  have  done, 
but  of  what  you  would  not  have  needed  to 
do.  The  sentence,  then,  should  have  been, 
"If  I  had  believed  so-and-so,  I  should  not 
*'  have  needed  to  trouble  myself  ". 
Professors       I  mav  noticc  also  that,  in  the   above 

walki-ngoff  *' 

with  the      sentence,  you  speak  of  rules   laid  down 

dictionaries.  *'  ^ 

by  the  "  dictionaries ",  and  the  "joro- 
^'fessors  of  rhetoric  "y  thus  substituting, 
in  one  case,  the  works  for  the  men; 
and,  in  the  other  case,  speaking  of  the 
men  themselves.     Why  not  either  speak 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH,  61 

of  the  "  compilers  of  dictionaries'\  and  the 
^'•professors  of  rhetoric''^ ;  or  else  speak  of 
the  "  dictionaries^\  and  the  "  treatises  on 
"  rhetoric'''  ?  Write  either  figuratively  or 
literally,  whichever  you  please  ;  or  write 
in  each  style,  by  turns,  if  you  like ;  for, 
variety  in  a  series  of  sentences,  where 
there  is  uniformity  in  each,  is  a  beauty ; 
but  variety  in  a  single  sentence  is  merely 
confusion:  witness  the  following  extract 
from  GilfiUan's  *  Literary  Portraits' : — 
"Channing's  mind  was  planted  as  thick 
"with  thoughts  as  a  backwood  of  his 
"own  magnificent  land."  A  bac/cwood 
planted  with  thoughts  !  What  a  glorious 
harvest  for  the  writers  of  America! 
says  Breen.  However,  I  must  not  enter 
upon  the  subject  of  style^  lest  I  should 
extend  this  letter  to  a  wearisome  length. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  you  do  not  mean  that 
you  found  the  professors  of  rhetoric 
walking  off  with  the  hooJcs^  though  you 
do  tell  us  you  '-'•  found  both  of  them'''' 
(the  dictionaries  and  the  professors  of 
rhetoric)  "  in  many  cases  going  astray  ". 

Continuing  my  review,  I  have  to  notice  t'/ofbS". 


62  TEE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

that  you  say,  "  His  difficulty  (and  I  men- 
"  tion  it  because  it  may  be  that  of  many 
"  others  besides  him)  is  that  he  has  missed 
"  the  peculiar  sense  of  the  preposition  by 
"  as  here  used."  Your  difficulty  seems 
to  be,  that  you  have  missed  seeing  the 
X>ecuUar  sense  {7ionsense)  of  your  own  ex- 
pressions. You  tell  us  that  you  men- 
tion your  correspondent's  difficulty,  be- 
cause it  may  be  a  difficulty  of  many 
other  people,  besides  being  a  difficulty  of 
him  ! 
IndfJtu?r      Finally,   as  regards   my  criticisms   on 

of  verbs. 

your  grammar;  you  say,  "  Ihe  next 
"  point  which  I  notice  shall  be  the  use  of 
*'  the  auxiliaries  '  shall '  and  '  will '.  Now 
"  here  we  are  at  once  struck  by  a  curious 
*'  phenomenon."  We  certainly  are  ; — 
the  phenomenon  of  a  gentleman  setting 
himself  up  to  lecture  on  the  use  of  verbs, 
and  publicly  proclaiming  his  unfitness  for 
the  task  by  confusing  the  present  and  the 
future  in  the  very  first  sentence  he  utters 
on  the  subject. 
-to"")??  Speaking  of  the  verb  "to  progress", 
gress".       y^^  g^^^  "The  present  usage  makes  the 


THE  jDEAJ^-'S  ENGLISH.  63 

"  verb  neuter  ",  and,  "  We  seem  to  want 
"  it ;  and  if  we  do,  and  it  does  not  violate 
"  any  known  law  of  formation,  by  all 
"means  let  us  have  it.  True,  it  is  the 
"first  of  its  own  family;  we  have  not 
"yet  formed  aggress^  regress^  &c.,  into 
"  verbs."  If  you  will  allow  me  to  digress 
from  the  consideration  of  your  grammai* 
to  the  consideration  of  your  accuracy,  I 
will  show  that  you  transgress  in  making 
this  statement.  In  the  folio  edition  of 
Bailey's  '  Universal  Dictionary^ ^  published 
in  1755,  I  find  the  very  verbs,  "  ^o  ag- 
^^ gress''"'  and  ''Ho  regress''\  which  you,  in 
1863,  say  '■'we  have  not  yet  formed''\  In 
the  same  dictionary  there  is  also  the  verb 
"  to  progress  "y  and  it  is  given  as  a  verb 
neuter.  So  that  what  you  call  "  the  pre- 
"  sent  usage  "  is,  clearly,  the  usage  of  the 
past  /  the  verb  which  you  say  is  "  the  first 
"  of  its  0VJ71  family  ",  is  nothing  of  the 
sort ;  "  to  aggress  "  and  "  to  regress  ",  which 
you  say  "  ice  have  not  yet  formed ",  are 
found  in  a  dictionary  published  in  1755; 
and  the  neuter  verb  which  you  say  "  we 
"  seem  to  want  ",  we  have  had  in  use  more 


64  THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

than  one  hundred  years!  Nor  are  the 
verbs  aggress  and  regress  mere  "  dictionary 
'•^words  loithout  any  authority  for  their  use^\ 
The  former  is  used  by  Prior  in  his  '  Ode  to 
^ Queen  Anne'';  and  the  latter  is  used 
by  Sir  Thomas  Browne  in  his  '  Vulgar 
'  Errors  '.* 

I  will  briefly  notice  a  few  of  your 
numerous  errors  in  syntax,  <fcc.,  and  then 
pass  on  to  weightier  matters.     You  speak 

jl^preciuded  (jf  ^  possibility  being  '-^ precluded  in''''  the 
mind.     You  tell  us  of  "  a  more  neat  way 

ingll'sen-'  "  ^^  cxpvessing  what  would  be  Mr.  3foo7i's 
"  sentence  ".  We  express  a  77ieaning,  or  we 
tcrite  a  sentence  ;  but  we  do  not  express  a 
sentence.  The  word  seems  to  be  rather  a 
pet  of  yours;   you   speak   on   page    198, 

Expressing  of  expressi?ig  a  woman/  '  Queer  Eng- 
'  lish '  would  not  have  been  an  inappro- 
priate title  to    your   essays.      Then   we 

^p"  ''^^P^*'*  have  "  in  respect  of",  for  "  with  respect 


*  For  an  account  of  the  origin  and  gradual  develop- 
ment of  the  words  "  progress  ",  "  digress  ",  '*  egress  ", 
"  regress ",  and  "  transgress ",  see  an  interesting 
little  book,  called  '  English  Roots ',  by  A.  J.  Knapp, 
p.  135. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  66 

"  to  ";*  and  "  an  exception,  which  I  camiot  l^^H^^ 
"  well  treat ",  instead  of,  "  of  which  I  can- 
"not  well  treat";  for  it  is  evident  from 
the  context,  that  you  were  not  speaking  ot 
treating  an  exception,  but  of  treating  of  an 
exception. 

The     construction     of     some      of     your  Objection- 
able con- 
sentences     is     very    objectionable:     yoiiggn^teJj^eg"^ 

"  say,  I  have  noticed  the  word  '  party ' 

"  used     for     an     individual,     occurring 

'''in   Shakspeare^\  instead   of,    "I    have 

"  noticed,  in  Shakspeare,  the  word  '  party ' 

"  used  for  an  individual ".     But  how  is  it 

that  you  call  a  man  an  individual?     In^i^Jar^J* 

your  first  essay  on  the  Queen's  English 

you  said,  "  It  is  certainly  curious  enough 

"  that  the  same  debasing  of  our  language 

"should  choose,  in   order  to   avoid  the 

"good  honest  Saxon  '  man\  two  words, 

" '  individuaV  and  ''party'',  one  of  which  ex- 

"  presses   a  man's   unity,  and  the   other 

"  belongs  to  man  associated.''''     It  certainly 

*  This  error  is  treated  of  at  some  length  in 
'■Lectures  on  the  English  Language\  by  George  P. 
Marsh,  edited  by  Dr.  William  Smith,  Classical  Ex- 
aminer at  the  University  of  London,  pp.  467-9. 

F 


"  stated 
into  pro- 
minence. 


66  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

is  curious  ;  but  what  appears  to  me  to  be 
more  curious  still,  is  that  you,  after  writing 
that  sentence,  should  yourself  call  a  man 
"  an  individual "/ 

Again,  I  read,  "  The  purpose  is,  to  bring 
"  the  fact  stated  into  prominence  " :  stated 
into  prominence!  unquestionably,  this 
should  be,  "  to  bring  into  prominence  the 

The  natural  u  ^      .    cflfpfl  " 
order  of  con-       ^*^*^^  &Ud,LL.U     . 

sentencf.*  Evcu  whcu  Writing  on  the  proper  con- 
struction of  a  sentence,  you  construct  your 
own  sentence  so  ^/?^properly  that  it  fails 
to  convey  your  meaning.  You  say,  "  The 
"  natural  order  of  constructing  the  sen- 
"  tence  would  be  to  relate  what  haj^pened 
"  first,  and  my  surprise  at  it  afterwards  ". 
Your  sentence  does  not  enlighten  us  on 
your  views  of  the  proper  order  in  which 
the  facts  should  be  related ;  it  tells  us 
merely  that  we  should  relate  what  first 
happened,  and  your  subsequent  surprise 
at  it.  Not  one  word  about  the  order  of 
relation.  We  are  to  relate  what  '■^happened 
'■''first "  but  we  are  not  told  what  to  relate 
first.  You  should  have  said,  ''  The  natural 
"  order  of  coustructins^  the  sentence  would 


0U9  associa- 
tion of 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  67 

«'  be  to   7'elate  first  what  happened,  and 

''''afterwards  ray  surprise  at  it".     You  go 

on  to  tell  us  that  we  ought  not  "  to  mislead 

"the  reader,  by  introducing  the  possibi- 

"  lity  of  constructing  the  sentence  other- 

"  wise    than    as    the    writer    intended ". 

How  much  easier  it  is  to  preach  than  to  "  con- 
struct" and 

practise!     What  do  you  wish  us  to  un-"*^°°^^^"«'"- 
derstand  by  readers   "  constructing  "  the 
Bentence  ?     Writers    construct ;    readers 
construe.  i"'?S 

0U9  asp"'^' 

Lastly,  on  this  part  of  the  subject ;  weas! 
you  say,  "Mr.  Moon  quotes,  with  dis- 
"  approbation,  my  words,  where  I  join 
"  together  '  would  have  been  broken  to 
" '  pieces  in  a  deep  rut,  or  come  to  grief 
"  *  in  a  bottomless  swamp '.  He  says  this 
"can  only  be  filled  in  thus,  'would  have 
"  '  been ' ",  &c.  I  am  quite  sure  that  Mr. 
Moon  never,  after  mentioning  your  sen- 
tence about  "a  deep  rut "  and  "«  bottomless 
'''' swamp ''\  speaks  of  the  sentence  being 
''^filled  in  ".''  That  is  the  Dean  of  Canter- 
bury's style ;  he  gives  a  sentence  about 
eating  and  being  full^  and  then  speaks  of 
the  sentence  being  '"'•  filled  up  ".^  He  speaks 

F  2 


68  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

of  people  mending  their  loays  /  and,  in  the 
very  next  paragraph,  talks  about  the 
"  Queen's  highioay  "  and  "  hy-roads  "  and 
^i private  roads^\  He  speaks  of  things 
''^loithoiit  life'"';  and  immediately  afterwards 
says  he  will  introduce  the  body  of— his  essay. 

i-Ss'ii''.  Y^^  ^^1^?  doubtless,  gain  great  notoriety 
by  your  strange  essays  on  the  Queen's 
English ;  for,  in  consequence  of  your  in- 
accuracies in  them,  it  will  become  usual  to 
describe  bad  language  as ''- Dean's  EnglisK\ 
By  "  bad  language  ",  I  do  not  mean  rude 
language  ;  I  say  nothing  about  that.  I 
mean  that,  in  consequence  of  your  un- 
grammatical  sentences,  it  will  be  as  com- 
mon to  call  false  English,  "  Dean's  Eng- 
''''lish''\  as  it  is  to  call  base  white  metal, 
"  German  Silver.'''' 

Eight-and-       You  say,  "I  have  given  a  fair  sample 

twenty  .        .  -i  •    i     ii*- 

nouns  be-    "  of  the  instanccs  of  ambiojuity  which  Mr. 

tween  a  pro-  ^ 

^^onn^^niiii^u'^QQ^  citcs  out  of  mycssay".  A  fair 
sample !  And  yet  you  have  made  no 
mention  of  the  instance  of  the  eight-and- 
twenty  nouns  intervening  between  the 
pronoun  "^^"  and  the  noun  '•^hahit''\  to 
which   it  refers.     A  fair  sample  !     And 


THE  DEAIPS  ENGLISH.  69 

yet  you  have   made   no   mention   of  the  ^^P^^JJf[^P^ 

instance  of  ambiguity  in  the  paragraph  iS^240  dif- 
ferent read- 
about    "  covetous   and   covetousness    ;   a  ings. 

paragraph  of  less  than  ten  lines,  yet  so 

ambiguously  worded  that  you  may  ring 

as  many  changes  on  it  as  on  a*  peal  of 

bells ;  only  the  melody  would  not  be  quite 

as  sweet.     However,  if  you  do  not  object 

to   a   little   bell-ringing,  and  if  you  will 

not   think   it   sacrilegious  of  me  to  pull 

the  ropes,  I  will  just  see  what  kind  of  a 

peal   of  bells  it  is  that  you  have  hung 

in  your  belfry,  for  I  call  the  j^aragraph, 

"  the  helfry  ",  and  the  pronouns,  "  the  peal 

"  of  bells ",  and  these  I  name  after  the 

gamut.  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  so  we  shall 

not  have   any  difficulty  in  counting  the 

changes.     You   say,  "While   treating   of 

"the  pronunciation  of  those  who  minister 

"  in  public,  two  other  words  occur  to  me 

"  which  are  very  commonly  mangled  by 

"  our  clergy.     One  of  these  is  '  covetous ', 

"  and  its   substantive   '  covetousness '.     I 

"hope   some  who   read   these  Unes^  will 

"be   induced   to    leave    off   i^ronouncing 

*'  them  '  covetious '  and  '  covetiousness '.    I 


10  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

C  D 

"  can  assure  them  that  wlien  they  do  thus 

E  F 

"call  them,  one,  at  least,  of  their  hearers 

a 

"  has  his  appreciation  of  tlieir  teaching 
"  disturbed ".  I  fancy  that  many  a  one 
who  reads  these  lines  will  have  his  appre- 
ciation of  your  teaching  disturbed,  as  far 
as  it  relates  to  the  Queen's  English.  But 
now  for  the  changes  which  may  be  rung] 
on  these  bells,  as  I  have  called  them. 
The  first  of  them,  *'A",  may  apply  either  I 
to  "words",  or  to  "our  clergy".  You 
say,  "  our  clergy.  One  of  these  is  '  covet- 
"  '  ous ' ".  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  the  [ 
general  belief  is,  there  are  more  than  one^ , 
but  perhaps  you  know  one  in  particular. 
However,  my  remarks  interrupt  the  .bell- 
ringing,  and  we  want  to  count  the  changes, 
so  I  will  say  no  more,  but  will  at  once 
demonstrate  that  we  can  ring  10,240 
changes  on  your  peal  of  bells  !  In  other 
words,  that  your  paragraph,  of  less  than 
ten  lines,  is  so  ambiguously  worded,  that, 
without  any  alteration  of  its  grammar  or 
syntax,  it  may  be  read  in  10,240  different 
ways !  and  only  one  of  all  that  number  shall 
be  the  right  way  to  express  your  meaning  I 


THE  DEAN'S  EXGLISH. 


71 


The  Pro- 
nouns. 

Nouns  to  which  they  may  apply. 

No.  of  Different  Readings. 

3 
) 

\ 

these 
them 
them 
they 
them 
their 

their 

words,  or  clergy 

words,  clergy,  readers,  or  lines 

words,  clergy,  readers,  or  lines 

words,  clergy,  readers,  or  lines 

words,  clergy,  readers,  or  lines 

words,  clergy,  readers,  or  lines 

J  words,  clergy,  readers,  lines, 
(      or  hearers    .... 

2 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 

5 

.        .                .        .        .         2 

these  4  X  by  the  above     '2=         8 
these  4  X  by  the  above     8=       32 
these  4  X  by  the  above   32=      128 
these  4  X  by  the  above  128=     512 
these  4  X  by  the  above  512=    2048 

these  5  X  by  the  above  2048=10,240 

'       This   is  indeed  a  valuable  addition  tOAUterary 

curiosity. 

tlie   curiosities   of  literature :   a  treasure 

"  PRESENTED   TO    THE   BkITISH   NaTION   BY 

"  THE  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Canter- 
*'  BURY  ".     No  doubt  it  will  be  carefully- 
preserved   in  tbe   library  of  the  British 
Museum. 
I  have  now,  a  serious  charo^e   to   pre- The  piay  of 

'  .  Hamlet 

fer  asjainst  you ;    a   charo^e   to   which  I  ^'^^^^l 

o  J         ■>  o  ghost  left 

am  reluctant  to  give  a  name.  I  will®"'* 
therefore  simply  state  the  facts,  and  leave 
the  public  to  give  to  your  proceedings  in 
this  matter,  whatever  name  they  may 
think  most  fitting.  You  say,  on  page 
439,  "  I  am  reminded,  in  writing  this,  of  a 
"  criticism  of  Mr.  Moon's  on  my  remarks 


n  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  that  we  have  dropped  'thou'  and  'thee' 
"in. our  addresses  to  our  fellow-men,  and 
"  reserved  those  words  for  our  addresses 
"  in  prayer  to  Him  who   is   the   highest 
"  personality.     It  will  he  hardly  believed 
"  that  he  professes   to  set  this  right  by 
"  giving  his  readers  and  me  the  information 
"  that  '  these  pronouns  are  very  extensively 
"  *  and  profusely '  (I  used  no  such  word) 
"  *  used  in  poetry,  even  (!)  when  inanimate 
"  *  objects  are  addressed ' :   and  thinks  it 
"  worth  while  to  quote  Coleridge's  Address 
'' to  Mont  Blanc  to  prove  his  point !  Really,  , 
"  might  not  the  very  obvious  notoriety  of 
"the  fact  he  adduces  have  suggested  to 
"  him  that  it  was  totally  irrelevant  to  the 
"matter  I  was  treating  of?"     Truly,  this 
is  the  play  of  Hamlet  loith  the  ghost  left 
out  hy  special  desire.     Your  object  was  to 
controvert  what  I  had  advanced  against 
your   essay;   and,   I  must   say,   that  the 
means  you  have   adopted  to  accomplish 
that  end,  are,  to  speak  mildly,  not  much 
to  your  credit.     I  will  prove  what  I  say. 
The  one  icord.,  against  which  the  vihole  of 
my  argument  teas  directed,  you  have,  in 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  73 

reproducing  your  sentence^  omitted  from 
the  quotation ;  and  then,  of  the  mangled 
remains  of  the  sentence,  you  exclaim,  "  It 
"  will  be  hardly  believed  that  he  professes 
"  to  set  this  right ".  I  j)rofessed  nothing 
of  the  sort ;  you  must  know  well,  that  my 
attack  was  against  the  one  loord  lohich  you 
have  omitted.  That  this  was  the  case, 
may  clearly  be  seen  on  reference  to  my 
former  letter,*  where  that  word  was,  and 
still  \^.,  printed  in  italics,  to  draw  special 
attention  to  it.  You  betray  the  weakness 
of  your  cause  when  you  have  recourse  to 
such  a  suppression. 

Nor  is  the  above  instance  of  misquota-  Misquota- 

•^  tion  of  an 

tion  the  only  one  in  your  essay.  On  page  Sr*'* 
429,  you  put  into  my  mouth  words  which 
I  never  uttered ;  words  which  express  a 
meaning  totally  at  variance  with  what  I 
said.  You  enclose  the  sentence  in  inverted 
commas  to  mark  that  it  is  a  quotation; 
and,  as  if  that  were  not  enough,  you  preface 
that  sentence  with  this  doubly  emphatic 
remark;  '^  these  are  his  words  not  mine'''' . 
You  then  make  me  say  that  I  hope  "  as  I 


74  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  so  strongly  advocate  our  following  tlie 
''  Greeks  in  the  pronunciation  of  their 
"  proper  names,  I  shall  be  consistent,  and 
''  never  again,  in  reading  the  Lessons,  call 
"  tliose  ancient  cities  Samaria  and  Phila- 
"  delphia  otherwise  than  Samaria  and 
''''Philadelphia.'''*  I  never  had  any  such 
thought,  nor  did  I  ever  express  any  such 
Avish.  These  words  are  not  mine  ;  nor  are 
they  any  more  like  mine,  than  I  am  like 
you.  The  original  sentence,  of  which  the 
above  is  a  perversion,  will  be  found  on 
page  30  of  my  former  letter. 
Misrepre-        But  the  part   of  my  letter  which  you 

sentations. 

most  fully  notice  in  your  reply,  is  that 
which  treats  of  the  arrangement  of  sen- 
tences ;  and,  exactly  as  you  suppress,  in 
the  instance  I  have  given,  the  one  important 
word  on  which  the  whole  of  the  argument 
turns ;  so,  in  the  matter  of  the  arrangement 
of  sentences,  you  suj^press  the  one  impor- 
tant paragraph  which  qualifies  all  the  rest ! 
You  privately  draw  the  teeth  of  the  lion 
and  then  publicly  show  how  valiantly  you 
can  put  your  head  into  his  mouth ;  thus 
not  only  damaging  your  own  character  for 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH,  75 

honesty  of  representation,  but  also  insult- 
ing the  intelligence  of  the  public,  who 
you  imagine  can  be  deceived  by  such 
childish  performances.  The  following  are 
the  facts  of  the  case.  You  say,  after 
mentioning  the  authorities  I  had  named, 
"The  one  rule  of  all  others"  (!)  "which 
"he"  (Mr.  Moon)  "cites  from  these  au- 
"thorities,  and  which  he  believes  me  to 
"have  continually  violated,  is  this:  that 
" '  those  parts  of  a  sentence  lohich  are  most 
" '  closely  connectedin  their  meaning^  should 
"  '  he  as  closely  as  possible  connected  in 
"  ^2)osition  \  Or,  as  he  afterwards  quotes 
"  it  from  Dr.  Blair,  '  A  capital  rule  in  the 
" '  arrangement  of  sentences  is,  that  the 
" '  words  or  members  7nost  nearly  related 
" '  should  be  placed  i7i  the  sentence  as  near 
" '  to  each  other  as  possible,  so  as  to  make 
"  '  their  7nutual  relatio7i  clearly  appear '  ". 
You  then  go  on  to  say,  "  Now  doubtless 
"  this  rule  is,  in  the  main,  and  for  general 
"  guidance,  a  good  and  useful  one ;  indeed, 
"  so  plain  to  all,  that  it  surely  needed  no 
"inculcating  by  these  venerable  writers. 
"  But  there  are  more  things  in  the  English 


76  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  language  than  seem  to  have  been  dreamt 
"of  in  their  philosophy.  If  this  rule 
"  were  uniformly  applied,  it  would  break 
'•  down  the  force  and  the  livinor  interest  of 
"  style  in  any  English  writer,  and  reduce  his 
"  matter  to  a  dreary  and  dull  monotony  ; 
"  for  it  is  in  exceptions  to  its  application 
"  that  almost  all  vigour  and  character  of 
"style  consist".  Would  any  person — 
could  any  person — in  reading  the  above 
extract  from  your  reply  to  my  letter,  ever 
imagine  that  that  letter  contains  such  a 
paragraph  as  the  following  ?  I  quote  from 
page  26,  where  I  say,  "  In  contending  for 
"  the  law  of  position,  as  laid  down  by  Lord 
"  Kames,  Dr.  Campbell,  and  others,  I  do 
"  so  on  the  ground,  that  the  observance  of 
"  this  law  contributes  to  that  most  essen- 
*'  tial  quality  in  all  writings — perspicuity  ; 
"  and  although  I  would  not,  on  any  accowit^ 
*'  wish  to  see  all  sentences  constructed  on 
"one  uniform  plan,  I  maintain  that  the 
"  law  of  position  must  never  be  violated 
"  y^Tien  such  violation  would  in  a7iy  way 
"  obscure  the  meaning.  Let  your  meaning 
"  still  be  obvious,  and  you  may  vary  your 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  11 

"  mode  of  expression  as  you  please^  and  your 
'"''language  will  he  the  richer  for  the  varia- 
"  tion.  Let  your  meaning  be  obscure,  and 
"  no  grace  of  diction,  nor  any  music  of  a 
"  well-turned  period,  will  make  amends  to 
"  your  readers  for  their  being  liable  to 
"  misunderstand  you  ".  The  existence  of 
this  paragraph,  by  which  I  so  carefully 
qualify  the  reader's  acceptance  of  Dr. 
Blair's  law  of  position  as  a  universal  rule, 
you  utterly  ignore ;  and,  with  the  most 
strange  injustice,  you  charge  me,  through 
sentence  after  sentence,  and  column  after 
column,  of  your  tedious  essay,  with  main- 
taining that  all  expressions  should  be 
worded  on  one  certain  uniform  plan. 
Sentences  so  arranged  are,  you  say,  accord- 
ing to  "  Mr.  Moon's  rule ".  Sentences 
differing  from  that  arrangement  are,  you 
say,  a  violation  of  "Mr.  Moon's  rule". 
With  as  much  reasonableness  might  you 
leave  out  the  word  "  not  ",  from  the  ninth 
commandment,  and  assert  that  it  teaches, 
"  Thou  shalt  bear  false  witness  against  thy 
"  neighbour." 
This  being  your  method  of  conducting 


•^8  ■  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

a  controversy,  I  assure  you  that,  were  you 
not  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  I  would  not 
answer  your  remarks.  Doubtless,  before 
the  publication  of  this  rejoinder,  many  of 
the  readers  of  your  second  essay  will  have 
noticed  the  significant  circumstance,  that 
of  the  various  examples  you  give  of  sen- 
tences constructed  on  Avhat  you  are  pleased 
to  call  *'  Mr.  Moon's  rule  ",  but  which,  as  I 
have  shown,  is  only  apart  of  "  Mr.  Moon's 
"rule",  not  one  example  is  drawn  from 
Mr.  Moon^s  own  letter. 

You  say,  "But  surely  we  have  had 
"  enough  of  Mr.  Moon  and  his  rules ". 
I  do  not  doubt  that  you  have ;  but  I  must 
still  detain  you,  as  the  Ancient  Mariner 
detained  the  wedding-guest,  until  the  tale 
is  told.  That  being  finished,  I  will  let  you 
go ;  and  I  trust  that  like  him,  you  will 
learn  wisdom  from  the  past : — 

"  He  went  like  one  that  hath  been  stunned, 

"  And  is  of  sense  forlorn : 
"  A  sadder  and  a  xviser  man, 

"  He  rose  the  morrow  morn.'''' 

the  intio-        With  respect  to  the  date  of  the  intro- 
duction of 
"its"  into   duction  of  the  possessive  pronoun  "  ^^5  ", 

the  Bible.  ^  ^  ' 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  19 

which,  you  said,  "never  occurs  in  the 
"  English  version  of  the  Bible " ;  and 
which,  as  I  showed  you,  occurs  in  Levit- 
icus, XXV.  5  ;  you  shelter  yourself  under 
the  plea  that  you  meant  that  the  word 
never  occurs  in  the  "  authorised  edition  ", 
known  as  "King  James's  Bible".  But, 
as  you  did  not  say  either  ^^  authorised 
'-'edition^''  or  '-'- Kiyig  James' s BibW\  I  am 
justified  in  saying  that  you  have  only 
yourself  to  blame  for  the  consequences 
of  having  used  language  so  unmistakably 
equivocal,  as  you  certainly  did  when  you 
said,  "  the  English  version  of  the  Bible  ", 
and  did  not  mean  the  English  version 
now  in  every  one's  hands,  but  meant  a 
particular  edition  published  252  years 
ago.  Speaking  of  my  correction  of  your 
error,  you  say,  "  What  is  to  be  regretted 
"  is,  that  a  gentleman  who  is  setting 
"another  right  with  such  a  high  hand, 
"  should  not  have  taken  the  pains  to  ex- 
"  amine  the  English  version  as  it  really 
"stands,  before  printing  such  a  sentence 
"  as  that  which  I  have  quoted ".     I  will 


80  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

show  you  that  my  examination  of  the 
subject  has  been  sufficiently  deep  to  dis- 
cover that  yours  must  have  been  very 
superficial.  Speaking  of  the  word  "  its  ", 
you  say,  "its  apparent  occurrence  in  the 
"  2)lace  quoted  is  simply  due  to  the  King's 
"  printers,  who  have  modernised  the  pas- 
"  sage  ".  "  Apparent  occurrence  "  !  It  is 
a  real  occurrence.  Are  we  not  to  believe 
our  eyes  ?  As  for  the  "  King^s  prin- 
"  ters  ",  it  was  not  they  who  introduced 
the  word  *' ^7s  "  into  the  English  Bible. 
The  first  English  Bible  in  which  the  word 
is  found,  is  one  that  was  printed  at  a  time 
when  there  was  no  King  07i  the  English 
throne.,  consequently  when  there  were  no 
"  King'' s  printers  "  .*  it  was  printed  during 
the  Commonwealth.  Nor  was  that  Bible 
printed  by  the  "printers  to  the  Parlia- 
"  ment ".  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
it  was  printed  in  this  country.  The  word 
"  its "  first  occurs  in  the  English  version 
of  the  Bible,  in  a  spurious  edition  sup- 
posed to  have  been  printed  in  Amsterdam. 
It  may  be  distinguished  from  the  genuine 


THE  DEAIPS  ENGLISH.  81 

edition*  of  the  same  date,  1653,  by  that 
very  Avord  "  its ",  which  is  not  found  in 
the  editions  printed  by  the  "  printers  to 
"  the  Parliament ",  or  by  the  "  King's  prin- 
*'  ters  "  until  many  years  afterwards.  So 
when,  in  your  endeavours  to  escape  the 
charge  of  inaccuracy  contained  in  my 
former  letter,  you  say  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  word  "  its  ",  into  the  English 
version  of  the  Bible,  is  owing  to  the  ''''King's 
'"''printers  ",  you,  in  trying  to  escape  Scylla, 
are  drawn  into  the  whirlpool  of  Cha- 
rybdis ! 

You  speak  of  my  demolishing  your  *^j.J"° V 
character  for  accuracy.  I  do  not  know  ^^"^*'^^'®* 
what  character   you  have  for  accuracy; 


*  The  genuine  edition  contains  most  gross  errors , 
for  instance,  in  Rom.  vi.  13,  it  is  said,  "Neither  yield 
"  ye  your  members  as  instruments  of  righteousness  ", 
instead  of  "  wnrighteousness " ;  and,  as  if  to  con- 
firm the  above  teaching,  it  is  said,  in  1  Cor,  vi.  9, 
"th§  w?irighteous  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
"God";  instead  of  "shall  not  inherit".  Com- 
plaint was  made  to  the  Parliament ;  and  most  of  the 
copies  now  extant  were  cleared  of  the  errors  by  the 
cancelling  of  leaves.  The  spurious  edition  is  com- 
paratively faultless. 

a 


82  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

but  this  I  know,  that  whenever  I  see  a 
man  sensitively  jealous  of  any  one  point 
in  particular  of  his  character,  I  am  not 
often  wrong  in  taking  his  jealousy  to  be 
a  sure  sign  of  conscious  weakness  in  that 
very  point.  What  are  the  facts  of  the 
case  with  regard  to  yourself?  I  have 
given  several  instances  of  your  gross 
inaccuracy.  I  take  no  notice  of  unim- 
portant misquotations  of  the  Scriptures 
and  of  my  own  sentences,  though  I  could 
mention  several  of  each  occurring  in  your 
second  essay ;  but  what  are  we  to  say  of 
the  following  ?  It  is,  if  intentional,  which 
I  cannot  believe,  the  boldest  instance  of 
misquotation  of  Scripture,  to  suit  a  special 
purpose,  that  I  ever  met  with.  I  am  sure 
it  must  have  been  unintentional ;  but  it 
is  such  an  error,  that  to  have  fallen  into 
it  will,  I  hope,  serve  so  to  convince  you 
that  you,  like  other  mortals,  are  liable  to 
err ;  that  the  remembrance  of  it  wilj  be 
a  powerful  restraint  on  your  indignation, 
if  others  should  venture,  as  I  have  done, 
to  call  in  question  your  accuracy.  The 
singular  instance  of  misquotation  to  which 


I 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  83 

I  refer  is  the  following. — Speaking  of  the 
adverb  "  onl^/  "  and  of  its  proper  position 
in  a  sentence;  you  say,  "The  adverb 
" '  onli/  \  in  many  sentences,  where  strictly 
"  speaking  it  ought  to  follow  its  verb,  and 
"to  limit  the  objects  of  the  verb,  is  in 
"good  English  placed  before  the  verb. 
"  Let  us  take  some  examples  of  this  from 
"the  great  storehouse  of  good  English, 
"  our  authorised  version  of  the  Scriptures. 
"In  Numbers  xii.  2,  we  read,  'Hath  the 
"  '  Lord  ■  only  spoTcen  by  Moses  ?  hath  He 
" '  not  spoken  also  by  us  ?'  According  to 
"  some  of  my  correspondents,  and  to  Mr. 
"Moon's  pamphlet  (p.  12)*,  this  ought  to 
"be,  'Hath  the  Lord  spo/cen  oiily  by 
" '  Moses  ?'  I  venture  to  prefer  very 
"  much  the  words  as  they  stand  ".  Now, 
strange  as  it  may  appear  after  your  asser- 
tion, it  is  nevertheless  a  fact  that  the 
words,  as  you  quote  them,  do  not  occur 
either  in  the  authorised  version,  known  as 
King  James's  Bible  of  1611,  or  in  our 
present  version,  or  in  any  other  version 
that  I  have  ever  seen  ^  and  the  words,  in 
*  Page  14,  in  this  Edition, 

a  2 


84  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

the  order  in  wliicli  you  say  I  and  your 
other  correspondents  Avould  have  written 
them,  do  occur  in  every  copy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures to  xohich  I  have  referred!  So  you 
very  much  prefer  the  words  as  they  stand, 
do  you  ?  Ha  !  ha  !  ha  !  So  do  I.  When 
next  you  write  about  the  adverb  '"''  only''\ 
be  sure  you  quote  only  the  right  passage 
of  Scripture  to  suit  your  purpose ;  and  on 
no  account  be  guilty  of  perverting  the 
sacred  text ;  for  these  are  not  the  days 
when  the  Laity  will  accept  without  proof, 
where  proof  is  possible,  the  statements  of 
even  the  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
Why  do  you     Bcforc  closin<?  this  letter,  I  have  iust 

call  me  an  ^  °  ... 

*^s-  one  question  to  ask;  it  is  this:  Why  do 

you  say  I  must  have  "  a  most  abnormal 
"  elongation  of  the  auricular  appendages'^''? 
In  other  words,  Why  do  you  call  me  an 
ass  ?  I  confess  to  a  little  curiosity  in  the 
matter ;  therefore  pardon  me  if  I  press 
tlie  inquiry.  Is  it  because  the  authorities 
I  quoted  are  "  venerable  Scotchmen  "  and 
that  therefore  you  conclude  I  must  be 
fond  of  thistles?— No 'i  Well,  I  will 
guess  again.    Is  it  because  I  TcicJced  at 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

your  authority  ? — No  ?  Well,  once  more. 
Is  it  because,  like  Balaam's  ass,  I  ''\forhad 
"  the  madness  of  the  prophet  "i*  lS'^^7/,  No  ? 
Then  I  must  give  it  up,  and  leave  to  my 
readers  the  solving  of  the  riddle ;  and 
while  perhaps  there  may  be  some  who 
Avill  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Dean 
of  Canterbury  calls  me  an  ass  because  I 
have  been  guilty  of  braying  at  him ;  there 
are  others,  I  know,  who  will  laughingly 
say  that  the  braying  has  been  of  that 
kind  mentioned  in  Prov.  xxvii.  22. 


I  am.  Rev.  Sir, 


Your  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  WASHINGTON  MOON. 


London^  July,  1863. 


86  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

Note. — The  Dean  of  Canterbury  having 
published  a  letter  exonerating  himself 
from  the  charge  of  discourtesy,  the  fol- 
lowing appeared  in  '  The  Patriot '  news- 
paper, in  answer  to  that  letter. 

THE   QUEEN'S  ENGLISH. 

TO     THE     EDITOR     OF     THE     PATRIOT. 

"  Sir, — Permit  me  to  say,  in  reference  to  the 
letter  from  the  Dean  of  Canterbury  which  you 
published  in  the  last  number  of  '  The  Patriot ', 
that  I  heartily  join  you  in  your  regret  that  any 
personahties  should  have  intruded  into  this 
discussion  on  the  Queen's  English,  and  I  gladly 
welcome  from  the  Dean  any  explanation  which 
exonerates  him  from  the  charge  of  discourtesy. 
But  I  must  say,  in  justification  of  my  having 
made  those  condemning  remarks  which  called 
forth  the  Dean's  letter,  that  I  was  not  alone  in 
my  interpretation  of  his  language.  Those  who 
had  the  privilege  of  hearing  the  Dean  deliver 
his  ^Plea  \  when  there  were  all  the  accom- 
panying advantages  of  emphasis  and  gesture 
to  assist  the  hearers  to  a  right  understanding 
of  the  speaker's  meaning,  understood  the 
epithets  which  he  employed  to  be  intended  for 
me ;  and,  as  such,  generally  condemned  them. 
My  authority  is  '  The  South-Eastern  Gazette  \ 
of  May  19th,  which  published  a  report  of  the 
meetino;. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  Si 

"  The  Dean  states,  in  his  explanatory  letter, 
that  he  intended  the  objectionable  epithets  not 
for  me,  but  for  the  hypothetical  reader  supposed 
by  me  to  be  capable  of  the  misapprehensions 
I  had  adduce(^  It  happens,  rather  unfor- 
tunately for  the  Dean's  explanation,  that  I  had 
not  spoken  of  any  hypothetical  reader.  Litera 
scripta  mane% — judge  for  yourself.  I  spoke 
not  of  what  the  Dean's  faulty  language  might 
suggest  to  some  imaginary  reader,  but  of  what 
it  did  suggest ;  and  to  whom,  but  to  me  ?  The 
hypothetical  reader  is  entirely  a  creation  of 
the  Dean's.  However  as  he  says  he  intended 
the  epithets  for  this  said  reader,  that  is  suf- 
ficient. I  am  quite  willing  to  help  the  Dean 
to  put  the  saddle  on  his  imaginary  "ass"; 
and  I  think  the  Dean  cannot  do  better  than  set 
the  imaginary  "idiot"  on  the  said  ass's  back, 
and  then  probably  the  one  will  gallop  away 
with  the  other,  and  we  may  never  hear  any- 
thing more  of  either  of  them. 

"  I  am,  Sir, 

"  Yours  most  respectfully, 

"G.  WASHINGTON  MOON. 

-'Sept.  IWi,  1863." 


"  Instead  of  always  fixing  our  thoughts 
"upon  the  points  in  which  our  literature  and 
"  our  intellectual  life  generally  are  strong,  we 
"  should,  from  time  to  time,  fix  them  upon 
"  those  in  which  they  are  weak,  and  so  learn  to 
"perceive  clearly  what  we  have  to  amend." — 
Matthew  Arnold. 


i 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


CRITICISM  No.  III. 

THE  CONCLUSION. 

Rev.  Sir, 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  withdraw  withdrawal 
the  charge  of  discourtesy  contained  in  my  charge  of 

^  •'  *'  discourtesy. 

former  letter  to  you.  I  cordially  accept 
the  explanation  you  have  given ;  and 
though  I  cannot  quite  reconcile  your 
statements  with  all  the  facts  of  the  case, 
I  feel  sure  that  the  discrepancy  is  ap- 
parent, not  real ;  and  that  you  are  sincere 
in  saying  you  did  not  intend  to  apply  to 
me  those  epithets  of  which  I  complained. 
But  allow  me  to  remark  that  for  whom- 
soever they  were  intended,  they  are 
"  objectionable  ".  Such  figures  of  speech 
neither  add  weight  to  arguments,  nor  give 
dignity  to  language ;   they  serve  only  to 


90  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

illustrate  how  easy  it  is  for  a  teacher  of 
others  to  disregard  his  own  lessons,  and 
become  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  all 
teaching,  like  all  charity,  should  begin 
at  home. 
A  teacher  is     Actuated    by   a   sincere    love    for   the 

always  a-  -' 

Seism.*"  language  which,  it  seems  to  me,  you  are 
injuring  by  precept  and  by  example,  I 
resume  my  criticisms  on  your  essays. 
You  constitute  yourself  a  teacher  of  the 
Queen's  English.  Were  it  not  so,  I 
should  consider  any  strictures  on  your 
language  as  simply  impertinent;  but  as 
you  have  judged  it  to  be  right  to  lecture 
the  public  on  certain  improprieties  of 
expression  which  have  crept  into  common 
use ;  it  cannot  be  out  of  place  for  one  of 
the  public  whom  you  address,  to  step 
forward  on  behalf  of  himself  and  his 
companions,  and  test  your  fitness  for  the 
office  you  have  assumed ;  especially  if  he 
confine  his  test  to  an  examination  of 
the  language  used  in  those  very  lectures 
themselves. 
"Honor"  ^^^^  ^^^J  deviation  which  I  have 
"fa;^o"r".     made  from  that   course  is  in  my  second 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  91 

letter.  There,  noticing  your  remarks  con- 
cerning the  practice  of  spelling  without 
the  "w"  such  words  as  "Ao^iowr"  and 
^^favour''\  I  quote  from  your  'Poems'^  the 
words  so  spelt,  and  add  some  prefatory 
remarks  of  yours  concerning  them.  In 
your  third  essay  you  speak  of  the  above 
circumstance,  and  you  infoiTU  me  that 
the  words  "  honor  "  and  '■^ favor  ",  which  I 
quoted  from  your  'Poems  \  were  from  that 
part  of  the  volume  which  was  printed 
in  America,  and  that  it  was  against  such 
American  spelling  that  you,  in  your  preface, 
protested. 

Allow  me  to  say,  in  explanation  of  my  |.\^J' 
having  unconsciously  quoted  from  the 
American  part  of  the  volume,  that,  as  the 
preface  stated  that  the  poems  which  you 
added  to  the  American  edition  were  the 
products  of  '''later  years''\  it  was  not  un- 
natural for  me  to  believe  they  were 
those  headed  "Recext  Poems":  and  it 
was  from  them  that  my  quotations  were 
made.  Besides,  you  call  the  American 
part  of  the  volume  the  "  nucleus "  of  the 
edition:   therefore,  if   I    had   taken    my 


«2  THE  DEAN'S  EN0LI8H. 

examples  of  orthography  from  the  com- 
mencement as  well  as  from  the  end  of 
the  volume,  I  should  have  been  justified 
m  doing  so;  for,  surely,  a  '•'■nucleus''''  is 
that  around  which  other  matter  is  col- 
lected. You  do  indeed  make  a  strange 
use  of  the  word  when  you  call  400  pages 
of  a  volume  of  poems  the  "  nucleus  "•  and 
leave  only  29  pages  at  the  end,  to  come 
under  the  description  of  "conglobated 
"  matter "  !  However,  even  in  those  few 
pages  of  English  printing,  which,  accord- 
ing to  your  own  confession,  were  under 
your  control,  I  find  the  word  honour 
spelt  "  honor  ",  and  the  word  odours  spelt 
"  odors  ".  The  charge,  therefore,  stands  as 
it  did;  and  your  explanation  has  served 
only  to  draw  more  scrutinizing  attention  to 
an  inconsistency  which  otherwise  might 
have  passed  almost  unnoticed. 
"No more",      So  you  rcally  defend  your  ungrammati- 

and  "never 

again  ".  cal  Sentence,  "  If  with  your  inferiors  speak 
"  no  coarser  than  usual ;  if  with  your 
"  superiors,  no  finer  "  ;  and  you  not  only 
defend  it,  as  allowable,  but  actually  main- 
tain   that    it    is    ^''Strictly    correct'''' ;   the. 


\i 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  93 

ground  of  your  assertion  being  that  you 
liad  "no  choice"  open  to  you  between 
saying  "  speak  no  coarser  than  usual ", 
and  "  speak  no  more  coarsely  than  usual"  ; 
and  you  objected  to  the  latter  expression 
because  you  believed  it  would  have  been 
ambiguous,  owing  to  the  term  "  710  onore  " 
being  capable  of  meaning  "  never  again  ". 
Are  you  not  aware  that  a  weak  defence 
is  a  strong  admission?  It  is  true  that 
"no  more'^''  sometimes  signifies  '"'•never 
^^again'^\'  but  you  well  know  that  it 
never  can  have  that  signification  when 
it  is  followed  by  "^/ia;^".  The  j^hrase 
"speak  no  more  coarsely  than  usual" 
could  never  be  understood  as  "speak 
"  never  again  coarsely  than  usual " ;  for, 
such  a  sentence  would  be  without  mean- 
ing. Besides,  if  you  feared  that  your 
sentence  would  be  ambiguous  with  the 
expression  "^zo  more  than''\  why  did  you 
use  that  expression  in  other  parts  of  your 
essays?  For  instance,  you  say,  "The 
"Queen  is  no  more  the  proprietor  of  the 
"English  language  than  you  or  I".  A 
certain  word,  you  say,  "  ought  no  more  to 


94  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"  be  spelt '  diocess ',  them  cheese  ought  to 
"be  spelt  *  chess'."      Where   were   your 
scruples   about    "no   onore''''   and  ^^ never 
"  agam^\  when  you  wrote  these  sentences  ? 
As  for  your  having  no   choice   between 
saying   "speak  no   coarser   than   usual" 
and  saying  "  speak  oio  more  coarsely  than 
"  usual " ;  you  certainly  had  not  well  con- 
sidered the  subject  when  you  made  thisi 
remark ;  for,  neither  of  the  expressions  is  J 
the   best   that    might    have   been   used; 
indeed,  the  former  is  grossly  ungrammat- 
ical ;  and   as   for   the   latter,  to   make   it ; 
m^ght  to  a    «  ^igj^f;  iQ  ^  ^^"  yo^^  jji^^gi^  change  the  "  no  "  ' 

into  "  not  "y  and  we  shall  then  have  what 
will  be  correct, — "7/^  with  your  inferiors 
^''  speaJc  not  more  coarsely  thaii  usuaV ;  or, 
"  do  not  speaJc  more  coarsely  than  usuaP\ 
"thin"  You  tell  us  that   ^^tha?i^^  governs   an 

govern  an  .  .^ 

accusative?  accusativc  casc.  What  nonsense !  If 
^^than^^  governs  an  accusative,  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Scriptures  were  wrong  in 
making  Solomon  say,  in  Eccles.  ii,  25, 
"  Who  can  eat  more  than  If  "  They  should 
have  made  him  say,  "Who  can  eat  more 
"  than  me  f  "  but  even  a  child  would  tell 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  96 

you  that  such  an  expression  would  be 
absurd,  except  under  the  supposition  that 
Solomon  was  the  king  of  the  Cannibal 
Islands. 

In  your  first  'Plea  for  the  Queen's  Eng-  '^^^Z'"'^^ 
Hish\  you  laid  it  down  as  a  rule  that  ^''°^^"- 
neuter  verbs  should  not  be  qualified  by 
adverbs,  but  by  adjectives ;  i.e.  we  ought 
not  to  say  "how  nicely  she  looks", 
but  "  how  nice  she  looks " ;  because, 
the  verb  'Ho  looJc'\  as  here  used,  is  a 
neuter  verb,  one  not  indicating  an  action 
but  merely  a  quality  or  state.  Yery  well ; 
but  unfortunately  your  practice  mars  the 
good  which  otherwise  might  be  done  by 
your  precept ;  for,  "  to  appear  "  is  as  much 
a  neuter  verb  as  "  to  look  "  used  as  above ; 
in  fact  it  is  but  another  foraa  of  expres- 
sion for  the  same  meaning ;  and  yet,  after 
ridiculing  "  young  ladies  fresh  from 
"school",  for  saying  "how  nicely  she 
"looks";  you  yourself  say  that  the  ac- 
count to  be  given  of  a  certain  inaccuracy 
"  appears  still  more  plainly "  from  the 
fact  that,  &c.,  &c.  If  I  may  be  allowed 
to  make  a  somewhat  questionable  pun,  I 


96  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

will  say  that  it  appears  to  me  more  and 
more  plain  that  you  never  more  com- 
pletely missed  your  vocation  than  when 
you  began  lecturing  "  boarding-school 
"7nisses^^  on  the  Queen's  English. 
Adjectives        While   remarkinc:   on   your   wronsf   use 

and  adverbs  r>  j  o 

of  adverbs,  I  may  notice  that  you  say 
"  our  Lord's  own  use  so  frequently  of  the 
"terra".  His  use  of  a  particular  term 
may  be  said  to  have  he  en  frequent ;  but 
it  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  "frequentli/.''^ 
Transpose  the  words  in  your  sentence 
and  you  will  see  this  at  once.  "Our 
"Lord's  own  so  frequently  use  of  the 
"  term  "  !  Surely  no  boarding-school  miss 
would  ever  write  thu?.  It  is  the  vei^b  that 
requires  the  adverb  ;  the  noun  requires  the 
adjective.  He  used  the  term,  frequently  ^ 
but  his  use  of  it  ^2^'^  frequent. 
Theprepo-  -"^^  ^  former  letter  I  called  attention  to 
''from'\  your  injudicious  use  of  the  preposition 
''''from''''  j  and  I  pointed  out  the  necessity 
for  guarding  against  suggesting  any  idea 
which  has  no  real  connexion  with  the 
matter  of  which  you  may  be  speaking. 
I  gave,  as  an  example  of  this  kind  of  fault, 


THE  DEAN'S  ENaLISH.  97 

your  sentence,  "  Sometimes  the  editors  of 
"  our  papers  fall,  from  their  ignorance,  into 
"  absurd  mistakes  ".  Here  the  preposition 
''\fro7n''\  immediately  following  the  verb 
'"''fall ",  suggests  the  absurd  idea  of  editors 
falling  from  their  ignorance.  In  your 
third  essay  you  repeat  the  fault,  and  speak 
of  "  architectural  traiisition,  from  the  ven- 
"erable  front  of  an  ancient  cathedral". 
The  sentence  runs  thus,  "  A  smooth  front 
"of  stucco  may  be  a  comely  thing  for 
"those  that  like  it,  but  very  few  sensible 
"men  will  like  it,  if  they  know  that  in 
"  laying  it  on,  we  are  proposing  to  ob- 
"  literate  the  roughnesses,  and  mixture  of 
"  styles,  and  traces  of  architectural  transi- 
"tion,  from  the  venerable  front  of  an 
"ancient  cathedral."  Here,  if  you  per- 
ceived that  the  mere  juxtaposition  of  the 
words  ''' trayisition'''^  and  '•''from'''*  was 
suggestive  of  an  idea  which  you  by  no 
means  intended  to  convey,  you  should 
have  separated  the  words  by  transposing 
the  last  clause  of  the  sentence.  It  might 
have  been  done  thus; — "proposing  "to 
"obliterate,  from  the  venerable  front  of 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

"an  ancient  cathedral,  the  roughnesses 
"and  mixture  of  styles,  and  traces  of 
"  architectural  transition."  You  may  say 
these  are  trifles;  but,  remember,  "it  is  by 
"  attention  to  trifles  that  perfection  is  at- 
"  tained ;  and,  perfection  is  no  trifle."  Be- 
sides, to  quote  your  own  words,  "  An  error 
"  may  be,  in  an  ordinary  jDcrson,  a  trifle ; 
"but  when  a  teacher  makes  it,  it  is  no 
"  longer  a  trifle." 

In  your  remarks  on  "  so",  used  in  con- 
nexion with  "  as",  you  say  " '  sa '  cannot 
"be  used  in  the  affii-mative  proposition, 
"nor  *as'  in  the  negative".  If  this  be 
correct,  why  do  you  yourself  use  "as" 
in  the  negative  ?  You  say  " '  its'  was  never 
"  used  in  the  early  periods  of  our  language, 
"  nor,  indeed,  as  late  down  as  Elizabeth." 

But  I  suppose  it  is  almost  useless  for 
me  to  address  you  on  the  subject  of  the 
various  niceties  of  aiTangement  which  re- 
quire to  be  attended  to  in  the  construction 
of  sentences.  You  seem  to  care  for  none 
of  these  things.  Yet,  believe  me,  such 
matters,  unimportant  as  they  may  appear, 
contribute  in   a  far  greater  degree  than 


THE  BEAK'S  ENGLISH.  i 

you  imagine,  to  make  up  the  sum  of  the 
difference  between  a  style  of  composition 
which  is  ambiguous  and  inelegant ;  and  one 
which  is  perspicuous  and  chastely  correct. 

You  evidently  entertain  some  fear  lest  ^sl7ea". ' 
the  study  of  the  rules  of  composition 
should  cramp  the  expression  of  the 
thoughts!  Xever  was  there  a  more 
groundless  apprehension:  and  in  propor- 
tion as  you  are  successful  in  disseminating 
such  notions,  do  you  inflict  on  our  lan- 
guage the  most  serious  injury.  For- 
tunately for  that  language,  the  poison 
of  your  teaching  carries  with  it  its  own 
antidote.  They  who  read  your  essays  on 
the  Queen's  English  cannot  fail  to  notice 
the  significant  fxct  that  he  who  is  thus 
strongly  advocating  the  principle  that  the 
rules  of  composition  serve  no  other  pur- 
pose than  to  "cramp  the  expression  of 
"his  thoughts",  does  not  exhibit  that 
fluency  and  gracefulness  of  diction  which, 
if  his  view  of  the  matter  were  correct, 
would  necessarily  be  displayed  in  his 
own  compositions. 

A  reviewer  in '  TheNonconformist '  writes 

H  2 


100  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

as  follows : — "  Away  Avitli  all  needless  and 
"  artificial  rules,  say  we,  indeed — as  ener- 
"getically  as  the  most  energetic.  But 
"the  elementaiy  and  natural  laws  of  a 
"  language  fetter  only  the  impatient  or  the 
"unskilful;  and  in  the  living  freedom 
"  with  which  genius  obeys  those  laws,  is 
"  its  strength  and  mastery  shoAvn. 

*  The unchartered  freedom  tries,' 

"says  Wordsworth,  in  vindicating  the 
"  self-imposed  bondage  of  the  Sonnet  ; 
"  and  in  so  saying,  he  enunciated  a  prin- 
"  ciple  no  less  philosophically  human  than 
"  wide  in  its  application." 

*  What  was  John  Milton's  opinion  on 
this  subject?  Was  he  opposed  to  rules 
and  maxims?  Did  he  think  they  served 
no  other  purpose  than  to  "cramp  the 
"expression  of  the  thoughts"?  Quite 
the  contrary. 

In  the  year  1638,  Milton,  in  a  Latin 
letter  addressed  to  an  Italian  scholar  who 
was  then  preparing  a  work  on  the  gram- 
mar of  his  native  tongue,  wrote  as  follows : 
"  Whoever  in  a  state  knows  how  to  form 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  101 

"  wisely  the  manners  of  men  and  to  rule 
"them  at  hojne  and  in  war  by  excellent 
"institutes,  him  in  the  first  place,  above 
"others,  I  should  esteem  worthy  of  all 
"honour;  hut  next  to  him  the  man  who 
"  strives  to  eUahlish  in  maxims  and  rules 
"  the  method  and  habit  of  speaking  and 
^^  icriting  derived  from  a  good  age  of  the 
"  nation^  and^  as  it  were,  to  fortify  the  same 
''^  round  with  a  kind  ofioall,  the  daring  to 
"  overleap  u^hich,  a  law,  only  short  of  that 
"  of  Romidus,  should  he  used  to  prevent. 
"  Should  we  choose  to  compare  the  two  in 
"respect  to  utility,  it  is  the  former  only 
"  tliat  can  make  the  social  existence  of  the 
"citizens  just  and  holy;  but  it  is  the 
"  latter  that  makes  it  splendid  and  beauti- 
"  ful,  which  is  the  next  thing  to  be  desired. 
"The  one,  as  I  believe,  supplies  a  noble 
"  courage  and  intre]3id  counsels  against  an 
"  enemy  invading  the  territory ;  the  other 
"takes  to  himself  the  task  of  extirpating 
"and  defeating,  by  means  of  a  learned 
"  (-letective  police  of  ears  and  a  light  in- 
"fantry  of  good  authors,  that  barbarism 
"which    makes   large   inroads    upon    the 


102 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


minds  of  men,  and  is  a  destructive  intes- 
tine enemy  to  genius.     Nor  is  it  to  be 
considered    of    small    importance    what 
language,  pure  or  corrupt,  a  people  has, 
or  what  is  their  customary  degree  of  pro- 
priety in  speaking   it — a   matter  which 
oftener  than  once  was  the  salvation  of 
Athens:    nay,   as   it   is   Plato's   opinion 
that   by  a   change   in   the   manner   and 
habit  of   dress  serious  commotions  and 
mutations  are  portended  in  a  common-! 
wealth,    I,   for   my  part,   would   rather  i 
believe  that  the  fall  of  that  city  and  its 
low  and  obscure  condition  followed  on 
the  general  vitiation  of  its  usage  in  the ' 
matter  of  speech ;  for,  let  the  words  of  a 
country  be  in  part  unhandsome  and  of-1 
fensive   in   themselves,  in   part   debased: 
by  wear  and  wrongly  uttered,  and  what 
do  they  declare  but,  by  no  light  indict  i 
tion,  that  the  inhabitants  of  that  country 
are  an  indolent,  idly-yawning  race,  with ! 
minds    already   long    prepared   for   any 
amount  of  servility  ?     On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  never  heard  that  any  empire, 
any  state,  did  not  flourish  in  at  least  a 


THE  DEAN'S  ENaiTSH.  103 

"  middling  degree  as  long  as  its  own  liking 
"  and  care  for  its  language  lasted." 

So  far  John  Milton — the  noble  advocate 
of  law  and  rule,  though  in  virtue  of  the 
transcendency  of  his  genius  he  might  have 
claimed  to  be  above  all  rules.  Now  let  us 
liave  a  specimen  of  your  English,  —  the 
ICnglish  of  the  Dean  of  Canterbury,  who, 
avowedly,  disregards  all  rules,/earm^  they 
would'-'-cramp  the  exi^ression  of  his  thoughts'''! 

The   followins:   example  is  taken  from  ^''?,<!^'"® 

o  ^  writing. 

your  third  essay.  I  read, "  Hhis''  and  Hhese' 
"refer  to  persons  and  things  present,  or 
"under  immediate  consideration;  ^that'' 
"and  Hhose''  to  persons  and  things  not 
"present  nor  under  immediate  considera- 
"  tion ;  or,  if  either  of  these^  one  degree 
'"''further  removed  than  the  others  of  which 
"  are  used '  this '  and  '  these ' ".  What  can 
be  the  meaning  of  this  last  clause  ?  The 
reader  can  only  w^onder  and  guess.  It 
utterly  defies  all  j^ower  of  analysis,  and 
really  makes  one  uncomfortable  to  read  it. 
It  forcibly  recalls  the  following  anecdote  An  anecdote 
told  of  Douglas  Jarrold.  "  On  recovering  Jerroid. 
"  from  a  severe  illness,  Browning's  ^jSordello^ 


104  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


"  was  put  into  his  hands.     Line  after  line, 
"  page  after  page,  he  read,  but  no  consecu- 
"  tive  idea  could  he  get  from  the  mystic 
"production.     Mrs.  Jerrold  was  out,  and 
"  he  had  no  one  to  Av^hom  to  appeal.     The 
•'  thought  struck  him  that  he  had  lost  his 
"reason   during   his   illness,  and   that  he 
"  was  so  imbecile  he  did  not  know  it.     A  i 
"perspiration  burst  from  his  brow,  and  he  I 
"sat  silent  and  thoughtftil.     As  soon  as 
"his  wife   returned,   he    thrust    the   mys- 
"  terious  volume  into  her  hands,  crying  out,  , 
"'Read  this,   my   dear'!      After  several 
"  attempts  to  make  any  sense  out  of  the 
"  first  page  or  so,  she  gave  back  the  book,  , 
"saying,  'Bother  the  gibberish!     I  don't 
"'understand    a    word    of    it'.       'Thank 
" '  Heaven ',  cried  Jerrold,  '  then  I  am  not 
"'an  idiot'"! 

^The  Edinburgh  Review '  thus  speaks  of 
the  poem: — "This  poem  is,  in  our  judg- 
"ment,  from  its  confused  and  tortuous 
"style  of  expression,  the  most  illegible 
"production  of  any  time  or  country. 
"Every  kind  of  obscurity  is  to  be  found 
"in  it.     Infinitives  without  their  particles 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  105 

" — suppression  of  articles  definite  and 
"indefinite — confusion  and  suppression  of 
"pronouns  relative  and  personal  —  adjec- 
"tives  pining  for  their  substantives — 
"  verbs  in  an  eternal  state  of  suspense  for 
"their  subjects — elisions  of  every  kind — 
"sentences  prematurely  killed  oif  by 
"interjections,  or  cut  short  in  their 
"career  by  other  sentences — parentheses 
"  within  parentheses  —  prepositions  some- 
"  times  entirely  divorced  from  their 
"nouns — anacoloutha,  and  all  kinds  of 
"abnormal  forms  of  speech,  for  which 
"grammarians  have  ever  invented  names 
" — oblique  narrations,  instead  of  direct — 
"  and  puzzling  allusions  to  obscure  persons 
"  and  facts  disenterred  from  Muratori  or 
"  Tirahoschi^  as  though  they  were  perfectly 
"familiar  to  the  reader.  Indeed,  to  be 
"compelled  to  look  at  a  play  through 
"a  pair  of  horn  spectacles  would  be  a 
"cheerful  pastime  compared  with  the 
"  ennui  of  tracing  the  course  of '  Bordello ' 
"through  that  veil  of  obscurity  which 
"Mr.  Browning's  style  of  composition 
"places  between  us  and  his  conception." 


106  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

'  The  Saturday  Hevieio,''  in  commenting 
on  these  remarks,  says,  "It  is  but  just  to 
"  Mr.  Browning  to  state  that  the  poem  is 
"only  a  youthful  sketch,  and  that  Mr. 
"Browning  himself  has  acknowledged  its 
"many  faults  of  expression,  and  has 
"  explained  why  he  thought  it  profitless  to 
"  try  to  rectify  them." 
Incomplete      Hcrc   is   another    specimen   from    your 

sentence.  ^ 

essay;  I  give  the  entire  sentence,  which, 
closing  Avith  a  period,  should  be  complete 
in  its  sense.  You  say,  "The  next  thing 
"I  shall  mention,  not  for  its  own  sake, 
"  but  as  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of  criti- 
"cism  which  I  am  often  meeting  with, 
"  and  instructive  to  those  wlio  wish  to  be 
"critics  of  other  men's  language." 

It  was  not  until  I  had  long  and  hope- 
lessly pondered  over  your  sentence,  that 
I  discovered  what  it  was  you  intended  to 
say,  and  what  was  the  reason  of  my  not 
instantly  catching  your  meaning.  I  find 
that  the  first  clause  in  your  sentence  is 
inverted,  and  that  the  punctuation  neces- 
sary to  mark  the  inversion  is  incorrect,  or 
rather,   is   altogether  omitted  ;    hence,   I 


THE  DEAI^S  ENGLISH.  107 

read  the  sentence  thus, — "The  next  thing  " 
[which]  "  I  shall  mention,  not  for  its  own 
"  sake,  but  as  a  specimen,"  &c. ;  whereas 
your  meaning  was, — "  The  next  thing  "  [,] 
"I  shall  mention,  not  for  its  own  sake, 
"  but  as  a  specimen,"  &c. ;  or,  putting  the 
words  in  their  natural  order,  "I  shall 
"mention  the  next  thing,  not  for  its  own 
"sake,  but  as  a  specimen,"  &c.  Your 
hobby  of  leaving  out  commas  carries  you 
too  far ;  your  readers  cannot  follow  you : 
and  if  you  are  going  to  set  aside  the  rules 
of  punctuation  as  well  as  those  of  gram- 
mar, you  must  give  us  something  better 
than  this  to  convince  us  of  the  advantage 
to  be  gained  by  adopting  such  a  course. 

Among  other  curious  matters  to  be " ^^^jJ^J*^'' 
found  in  your  essays,  is  the  somewhat 
startling  information  that  the  expressions 
"i"  ai7iH  certain  ",  "Z  ainH  going  ",  are  not 
unfrequently  used  by  "  educated  persons  "! 
I  suppose  you  mean,  educated  at  college, 
where  the  study  of  English  is  altogether 
ignored ;  but  of  that,  more  by-and-by. 
In  the  meantime  I  pass  on  to  the  next 
sentence  in  your  essay.     Having  told  us 


108  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

that  the  above  expressions  are  not  un- 
frequently  used  by  "  educated  persons  " ; 
you  go  on  to  say,  "The  main  objection  to 
"  them  is,  that  they  are  proscribed  by  usage ; 
"  but  exception  may  also  be  taken  to  them 
"on  their  own  account".  So  I  should 
think,  if  they  will  use  such  expressions  as 
"  I  ain't  certain  ",  "  I  ain't  going  ". 
^'Tj-eated",     j  ^^^   ^^^   ^^-jj   ^^^   '' treated'^  rather 

of  "f*^  ^  than  "  treated  of'' ;  e.g.  "  a  matter  treated 
"in  my  former  paper".  On  a  previous 
occasion  I  spoke  of  this  error;  but  I 
suppose,  as  you  still  express  yourself  in 
the  same  way,  you  consider  the  terms 
synonymous;  but  they  certainly  are  not. 
To  treat  is  one  thing ;  to  treat  of  is 
another;  and  it  is  the  latter  expression 
that  would  convey  your  meaning.  The 
following  sentence  will  exhibit  the  dif- 
ference between  the  two  terms.  "  A  matter 
"  treated  of  in  my  former  paper  was  treated 
"  l>y  you  with  indifference." 

Eiripsis.  One  of  the  defects  noticeable  in  your 

essays,  is  that  of  making  your  expressions 
too  elliptical.  Brevity  is  undoubtedly  an 
excellent  quality  in  writing;  but  brevity 


\j 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  109 

should  always  be  subordinate  to  per- 
spicuity. This  has  not  been  attended  to 
in  the  following  sentence,  which,  singularly 
enough,  happens  to  be  upon  the  very 
subject  of  ellipsis  itself.  You  say,  "  Some 
"  languages  are  more  elliptical  than  others ; 
"that  is,  the  habits  of  thought  of  some 
"  nations  will  bear  the  omission  of  certain 
"members  of  a  sentence  better  than  the 
"habits  of  thought  of  other  nations" 
lioiW].  Do  you  riot  perceive  that  but  for 
the  little  word  "  wiW\  which  1  have  added 
to  your  sentence,  the  statement  would  be, 
that  "the  habits  of  thought  of  some 
"  nations  will  bear  the  omission  of  certain 
"  members  of  a  sentence  better  than  [they 
"  will  bear]  the  habits  of  thought  of  other 
"nations"? — a  truth  which  no  one  will 
be  found  to  deny ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
a  truth  which  jou  did  not  mean  to 
affirm. 
The  consequence  of  too  free  an  indul- "  Quack, 

^  quack  ?  " 

gence  in  the   elliptical    form    of    expres- ^^^«^'j 
sion,   would    probably    be    that    [in    the 
language  of  every-day  life,  at  any  rate,] 
all  connective  words  would  gradually  dis- 


110  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH, 

appear  from  use ;  and  we  should,  perhaps, 
ultimately  find  ourselves,  for  brevity's 
sake,  adopting  the  style  exemplified  in 
the  anecdote  given  by  Farrar,  and  which 
runs  thus. — "An  Englishman,  in  China, 
"seeing  a  dish  placed  before  him,  about 
"  which  he  felt  suspicious,  and  wishing 
"to  know  whether  it  was  duck,  said 
"with  an  interrogative  accent,  ^ Quack, 
'•'-'' quack? ''  He  received  the  clear  and 
"straightforward  answer,  ''Bow,  icow\^ 
"This,  no  doubt  was  as  good  as  the 
"most  eloquent  conversation  on  the  same 
"subject  between  an  Englishman  and  a 
"  French  waiter ;  but  I  doubt  whether  it 
"  deserves  the  name  of  language."  * 
— ^^afrtf/""  Among  the  peculiarities  of  style  ob- 
servable in  your  essays  is  your  evident 
fondness  for  feeble  expletives  which  add 
nothing  to  the  meaning  of  the  sentences 
to  which  they  are  attached.  You  say, 
for  instance, 

"I    did    not    allude    to    the    letter   at 
''alV\ 

*■  Farrar's  *  Origin  of  Language^''  p.  74,  as  quoted 
in  Max  MilUer's  '  Lectures^'  p.  346. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH,  111 

"  Twice  one  not  being  plural  at  all ". 

"Some  found  fault  with  me  for  dealing 
"  at  all  with  the  matter  ". 

"  Is  it  really  part  of  the  verb  *  have ', 
''atallf' 

"  If  we  use  the  past  tense  at  all ". 

"  Without  any  pains  at  all ". 

"The  use  of  the  plural  verb  at  all  is 
"  unusual ". 

I  should  much  like  to  know  the  origin 
of  the  phrase,  and  what  difference  in  the 
meaning  of  any  of  the  above  sentences 
there  would  be  if  the  words  were  struck 
out. 

Irishisms  also  should  be  avoided;  for  Irishisms : 

— "  and  the 

"  the    like    o'    them''''    are   anything    but  ^^^^ ". 
pleasing  in  essays  on  the  Queen's  Eng- 
lish. 

You  say,  "Wrong  understanding  of 
"  obsolete  phrases  and  the  like  ". 

"Patrobas,  Aristobulus  and  the  llke'^'', 
"Making  out  that  Andromache  was  An- 
"  drew  Mackay  aiid  the  like  ". 

"  Such  expressions  as  '  It  is  me ',  '  I 
" '  knew  it  to  be  him ',  aoid  the  like ". 

"We  continually  hear  and  read  'This 


112  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH, 

"'much  I  know',  'Of  that  much  I  am 
"'certain',  and  the  like^\ 

"To  take  it  in  good  part,  to  take  a 
"man  for  his  brother,  and  the  like^''. 

"'Plain',  'soft',  'sweet',  'right', 
"'wrong',  ayid  the  U7ce'\ 

"I  mean  in  my  youth,  or  when  I  was 
"in  Cheshire,  or  the  like^\ 

What !  Not  yet  over  that  '"''pons  asino- 
^^rum''''  of  juvenile  writers,  the  ^'' con- 
^''struction  louche''''?  You  were  there 
when  I  wrote  to  you  my  first  letter ;  and 
you  are  there  still?  This  ought  not  to 
be  ;  for,  the  effect  of  this  error  is  so 
ridiculous,  and  the  eiTor  itself  may  be 
so  easily  avoided.  You  say,  "Though 
"some  of  the  European  rulers  may  be 
"  females,  loheii  spoken  of  altogether,,  they 
"may  be  correctly  classified  under  the 
"denomination  'kings'."  In  this  sen- 
tence, the  clause  which  I  have  put  in 
italics  has,  what  our  Gallic  neighbours 
designate,  "a  squinting  construction",  it 
looks  two  ways  at  once;  that  is,  it  may 
be  construed  as  relating  to  the  words 
which  precede,  or  to  those  which  follow. 


\ 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  113 

Your  former  error  of  this  sort  was  in  the 
omission  of  a  comma ;  this  time  you  have 
erred  by  the  insertion  of  a  comma,  and  in 
each  case  a  like  result  is  produced.  Had 
there  been  no  comma  after  the  word 
"altogether",  the  ambiguity  would  have 
been  avoided,  because  the  words  in  italics 
would  then  have  formed  part  of  the 
last  clause  of  the  sentence:  but  as  the 
italicised  clause  is  isolated  by  commas, 
the  sentence  is  as  perfect  a  specimen  of 
this  error  as  ever  could  have  been  given. 
Absurd  as  would  be  the  sentence,  its  con- 
struction is  such,  that  we  may  understand 
you  to  say,  "  Some  of  the  Euroj^ean  rulers 
"may  be  females  when  spoken  of  alto- 
"gether'  ;  or  we  may  understand  you 
to  say,  "when  spoken  of  altogether,  they 
"may  be  correctly  classified  under  the 
"  denomination  '  kings ' "  ;  but,  even  in 
this  last  clause,  it  is  evident  that  you  say 
one  thinoj  and  mean  another.      The  con- The  differ- 

^  ence  be- 

text  shows  that  what  you  meant,  was,  J,^corrSf 
"  they  may  correctly  he  classified ",  not  alfr'^'^may ' 
"  they  may  he  correctly  classified  ".  Slight  classified". 
as  is  the  apparent  difference  here,  the  real 

I 


114  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

difference  is  veiy  great.  If  I  say,  "  they 
"may  he  correctly  classified",  my  words 
mean  that  the  classification  may  be  made 
in  a  correct  manner;  but  if  I  say,  "they 
"  may  correctly  he  classified  ",  the  meaning 
is,  that  it  is  correct  to  classify  them.  In 
the  first  example,  the  adverb  qualifies  the 
past  participle  "  classified  " ;  in  the  second, 
it  qualifies  the  passive  verb  to  "be  clas- 
"sified";  or,  in  other  words,  the  adverb 
in  the  former  instance  describes  the  thing 
as  being  properly  done ;  and,  in  the  latter 
instance,  as  being  a  thing  proper  to  do. 
The  Dean        One  word  uiorc  before  we  finish  with 

calls  Her 

/SS^/*  ^^^^^  Strange  sentence  of  yours.  On  page 
05  I  had  to  ask  you  why,  when  speak- 
ing of  a  man,  you  used  the  slang  word 
''^  individuaV\  I  have  here,  to  ask  you  a 
question  which  is  still  graver.  —  Why, 
when  speaking  of  women,  do  you  apply 
to  them  the  most  debasing  of  all  slang 
expressions?  You  speak  of  the  highest 
person  in  the  land,  and  that  person  a  lady, 
and  your  description  of  her  is  one  that  is 
equally  applicable  to  a  dog ! — Her  Majesty 
is — a  female !     I   am  sure  that  all  who 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  115 

desire  your  welfare  will  join  me  in  hoping 
that  Her  Majesty  will  not  see  your  book. 
It  is  but  too  evident  that  in  condemning 
these  slang  phrases,  as  you  do  in  your 
*  Queen^s  EngUsh\  page  246,  you  are 
echoing  the  sentiments  of  some  other 
write7%  rather  than  expressing  your  own 
abhorrence  of  slang.  I  shall  be  glad  if 
you  are  able  to  inform  me  that  I  am  mis- 
taken in  this  particular ;  and  that  you 
have  not  been  quoting^  but  have  been 
giving  us  original  matter. 
Revertino'  to  the  error  occasioned  by  a  Tiie  import- 

^  •'         ance  of  cor- 

comma  in  the  former  part  of  your  sen- [^^^j^^"'^' 
tence,  I  may  give,  as  another  example  of 
the  importance  of  correct  punctuation, 
an  extract  from  a  letter  in  'The  Times '  of 
June  19th,  1863  ;  there,  simply  by  the 
placing  of  the  smallest  point,  a  comma, 
before,  instead  of  after,  one  of  the  smallest 
words  in  the  language,  the  word  "on", 
the  whole  meaning  of  the  sentence  is 
entirely  altered,  and  it  is  made  to  express 
something  so  horrible  that  the  reader 
shudders  at  "the  mere  suggestion  of  it. 
The  letter  is  on  American  affairs,  and 

I  2 


116  THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

the  writer  says,  "  The  loss  of  life  will 
"  hardly  fall  short  of  a  quarter  of  a  million ; 
"and  how  many  more  were  better  with 
"  the  dead  than  doomed  to  crawl,  on  the 
"mutilated  victims  of  this  great  national 
"crime"  !  He  meant  to  say — "  than  doomed 
"  to  crawl  on,  the  mutilated  victims  of  this 
"  great  national  crime." 
"  In  a  fix  ".  But  I  must  hastcn  to  the  conclusion  of 
my  letter.  You  say,  "  The  derivation  of 
"the  word,  as  well  as  the  usage  of  the 
"great  majority  of  English  writers,  fix, 
"  the  spelling  the  other  way ",  i.e.  This 
(as  well  as  that)  fix  it !  Excuse  me,  but 
I  must  ask  you  why  you  write  thus,  even 
though  by  putting  the  question,  I  put 
you  "  i7i  a  fix "  to  answer  it. 
The/?iaz  You  speak  of  "  the  fi?ial  '  u '  in  tenour  ", 
"  tenour "  and  *  the  fi7ial  '  s '  in  months ".  You 
"months"  ^^^S^^  j^^^^  ^^  reasonably  speak  of  the 
final  "a"  in  the  alphabet. 

These  errors  are  so  gross  that  I  cannot 
forbear  reproving  you  in  your  own  words. 
"  Surely  it  is  an  evil  for  a  people  to  he  daily 
"  accustomed  to  readEnglish  expressed  thus 
"  obscurely  and  ungrammatically :  it  tends 


\\ 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  117 

^\to  confuse  thought^  and  to  deprive  lan- 
'''•  guage  of  its  proper  force^  and  hy  this 
"  means  to  degrade  us  as  a  nation  in  the 
^^ran/c  of  thinkers  and  speakers.'''* 
In  your  second  essay  you  are  loud  in  variety  not 

•^  *'     "^  always 

praise  of  variety  in  composition ;  and  !^^^f'°^' 
variety  enough  you  undoubtedly  have 
given  us  ;  but,  unfortunately,  the  variety 
is  not  of  that  description  which,  in  our 
school  days,  writing-masters  made  us 
describe  in  our  copy-books  as  "  charming  ". 
We  have  found,  in  your  Essays  on  the 
Queen's  English,  errors  in  the  use  of 
pronouns  ;  errors  in  the  use  of  nouns, 
both  substantive  and  adjective  ;  errors 
in  the  use  of  verbs  and  of  adverbs ;  and 
errors  in  the  use  of  prepositions.  There 
are  errors  in  composition,  and  errors  in 
punctuation  ;  errors  of  ellipsis,  and  errors 
of  redundancy  ;  specimens  of  feeble  ex- 
pletives, and  specimens  of  circumlocution  ; 
specimens  of  ambiguity,  and  specimens 
of  squinting  constructions ;  specimens  of 
slang,  and  specimens  of  misquotation  of  an 
opponent's  words  ;  and,  worst  of  all,  a 
specimen  of  a  misquotation  of  Scripture. 
Add  to  this  the  following  specimens  of 


118  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

tautology   and   tautophony,   and  the  list 
will,  I  think,  be  tolerably  complete.- 
Tautology        As    you    have    introduced    into    your 

andtautoph- 

ony.  essays  the  short  preface  to  your  Poems, 

that  preface  becomes  fairly  amenable  to 
criticism,  and  I  remark  that  in  it  you  say, 
"This  will  account  for  a  few  specimens  of 
"Transatlantic  orthography /or  which  the 
"  author  must  not  be  accounted  responsible". 

The  following  is  from  your  third  essay, 
— "An  officer  whose  duty  it  is  to  keep  a 
"  cowTi^er-roll,  or  check  on  the  accounts  of 
"others.  It  seems  also  clear,  from  this 
^''account  of  the  word,  that  it  ought  not,"  &c. 

Then  I  read,  "One  word  on  *tliis' 
"and  Hhat',  as  we  pass  onward^\ 

"At  last  we  abated  the  nuisance  by 
"enacting,  that  in  future  the  debatable 
"first  syllable  should  be  dropped". 

"Thought  and  speech  have  ever  been 
"  freer  in  England  than  in  otlier  countries. 
"From  these  and  other  cu-cumstances, 
"the  English  language  has  become  more 
"  idiomatic  than  most  others  ". 

"  The  sentences  which  I  have  quoted  are 
"  but  a  few  out  of  the  countless  ^7^stances 
^Hn  our  best  writers,  and  in  their  most 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  119 

"chaste  and  beautiful  passages,  in  which 
"this  usage  occurs.  On  examining  into 
"  it,  we  find  " — &c.  &c. 

Enough !  It  was  my  intention  to  say  a 
few  words  of  caution  to  students  of  the 
Queen's  English,  on  your  advice  to  them 
to  disregard  the  rules  of  grammarians  and 
be  guided  by  custom  and  common  sense ; 
but,  on  second  thoughts,  I  am  sure  that 
any  further  remarks  must  be  unnecessary ; 
for  if  your  plan  cannot  do  more  for  its 
teacher,  there  need  be  no  fear  that  it  will 
be  followed  by  any  sagacious  pupil. 

I  had  fully  intended  to  speak  also  on 
the  necessity  of  a  more  thorough  study 
of  English  at  our  Universities ;  but  any 
remarks  on  that,  will  likewise  be  con- 
sidered needless;  for,  your  own  English 
is,  itself,  a  volume  on  the  subject.* 

*  "To  such  as  can  hardly  believe,  that  in  our 
"Public  Schools,  Colleges,  and  Universities,  there 
"is  not  the  slightest  special  training  in  English, 
'  even  for  those  who  are  about  to  enter  Holy  Orders, 
"I  can  only  say  that,  however  surprising  it  may 
"  seem,  it  is  the  simple  fact."  "  Some  have  said, 
"  that  no  English  teaching  is  needed  in  our  Fniver- 
*'sities,  for  men  are   sufficiently  instructed  in  the 


120  THE  DEAIPS  ENGLISH. 

All !  Doctor  Alford,  we  find  you  guilty 

"  language  when  they  *  come  up  '.  I  meet  this  by  a 
"  simple  denial,  adding  that  most  men  are  not  suffi- 
"  ciently  instructed  even  when  they  ^  go  down  \  I 
"appeal  to  College  Tutors,  Examiners,  Bishops' 
*'  Chaplains,  and  to  the  Public,  whether  I  exaggerate 
"  or  not  in  making  this  assertion." — ^A  Flea  for  the 
'  Study  of  the  Englkh  Language  ',  by  Alexander  J.  D. 
D'Orsey,  b.d.,  English  Lecturer  at  the  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Cambridge,  pp.  2,  Z*l. 

Read  also  the  *  Report  of  Her  Majesty's  Com- 
» missioners  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  manage- 
'  ment  of  certain  Colleges  and  Schools  ".  (Presented 
to  Parliament  by  command  of  Her  Majesty,  March, 
1864.)  The  following  is  from  the  Report  of  the  exam- 
ination of  the  head  master  of  Eton,  "  the  greatest 
"  and  most  influential  of  our  Pubhc  Schools." 

Question^  No.  3530,  [Lord  Clarendon].  "  "What 
"  measures  do  you  now  take  to  keep  up  English  at 
"Eton?" — '"There  are  none  at  present,  except 
"  through  the  ancient  languages." 

Question,  No.  3531.  "  You  can  scarcely  learn 
"  English  reading  and  writing  through  Thucydides  ? '» 
"—No." 

Question,  No.  3532,  [Sir  S.  Northcote].  "You 
"  do  not  think  it  is  satisfactory  ?  "  —  "No  ;  the 
"English  teaching  is  not  satisfactory,  and  as  a 
"  question  of  precedence,  I  would  have  English 
''taught  before  French." 

Question,  No.  3533.  "  You  do  not  consider  that 
"  English  is  taught  at  present  ?  " — "  Noy 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  121 

of  injuring  by  your  example   a   glorious 

"  In  Greek  and  Latin,  no  doubt,  the  clergy  have 
"  advanced  as  fast  as  their  age,  or  faster.  University 
"men  now  write  Greek  Iambics,  as  every  one 
*'  knows,  rather  better  than  Sophocles,  and  would 
"  no  more  think  of  violating  the  Pause  than  of 
"violating  an  oath.  A  good  proportion  of  them 
"are  also  perfectly  at  home  in  the  calculation 
"of  perihelions,  nodes,  mean  motions,  and  other 
"  interesting  things  of  the  same  kind,  which  it 
"  is  unnecessary  to  specify  more  particularly.  So 
"far  the  clergy  are  at  least  on  a  level  with 
"  their  age.  But  this  is  all  that  can  be  .  said. 
"  When  we  come  to  ilieir  mother-tongue  a  dif- 
'■^ferent  story  is  to  be  told.  Their  English — the 
"  English  of  their  sermons — is  nearly  where  it  was  a 
"  hundred  years  ago.  The  author  of  '  Twenty  years 
" '  in  the  Church '  makes  the  driver  of  a  coach  remark 
"to  his  hero,  that  young  gentlemen  from  college  pre- 
^'■paring  to  take  orders  appear  to  have  learned 
"  everything  except  their  own  language.  And  so 
"  they  have.  Exceptions,  of  course,  there  are,  many 
"and  bright;  but  in  the  main  the  charge  is  true. 
"The  thmgs  in  which,  compared  with  former  ages, 
"  they  excel  so  conspicuously,  are  the  very  things 
"  which  have  least  concern  with  their  special  calling. 
"The  course  of  their  progress  has  reversed  the 
"  course  of  charity  ; — it  began  abroad,  and  has  never 
"yet  reached  home." — '■Gornhill  Magazine,''  May, 
1861. 


122  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

inheritance,  such  as  has  been  bequeathed 
.  to  no  other  nation  under  heaven.* 

I  can  believe  that  the  Eng^sh  language 
is  destined  to  be  that  in  which  shall  arise, 
as  in  one  universal  temple,  the  utterance 
of  the  worship)  of  all  hearts.  Broad  and 
deep  have  the  foundations  been  laid;  and 
so  vast  is  the  area  which  they  cover,  that 
it  is  co-extensive  with  the  great  globe  itself. 
For  centuries  past,  proud  intellectual  giants 
have  laboured  at  this  mighty  fabric; 
and  still  it  rises,  and  will  rise  for  genera- 
tions to  come:  and  on  its  massive  stones 
will  be  inscribed  the  names  of  the  pro- 
foundest  thinkers,  and  on  its  springing 
arches  the  records  of  the  most  daring 
flights  of  the  master  minds  of  genius,  whose 
fame  was  made  enduring  by  their  love  of 
the  Beautiful  and  their  adoration  of  the  All 
Good.      In  this  temple  the  Anglo-Saxon 

*  Grimm  says,  "The  English  tongue  possesses  a 
"veritable  power  of  expression,  such  as,  perhaps, 
"  never  stood  at  the  command  of  any  other  language 
''  of  man." — '  Ursprnng  der  Spraclie^  p.  52. 

"  Take  it  all  in  all,  it  is  the  grandest  and  the 
"  richest  of  modern  tongues." — '  Edinburgh  Heview^* 
July,  1864,  p.  176. 


\. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  123 

mosaic  of  the  sacred  words  of  truth  will 
be  the  solid  and  enduring  pavement;  the 
dreams  of  poets  will  fill  the  rich  tracery 
of  its  windows  with  the  many-coloured 
hues  of  thought ;  and  the  works  of  lofty 
philosophic  minds  will  be  the  stately 
columns  supporting  its  fretted  roof,  whence 
shall  hang,  sculptured,  the  rich  fruits  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge,  precious  as  "  apples 
"  of  gold  ", — "  the  words  of  the  wise  ". 

I  am.  Rev.  Sir, 

Yours  most  respectfully, 

G.   WASHINGTON   MOON. 

London,  May,  1864. 


"Curam  verborum    rerum  volo    esse  solici- 
tudinem." — Quintilian. 


EXAMPLE  versics  PRECEPT. 


The  Dean  said  ['■Good  Words ',  1863,  page 
437]  "7%e  less  you  turn  your  words  right  or 
"  left  to  observe  Mr.  Moon's  rules^  the  better  ". 
It  will  provoke  a  smile  on  the  face  of  the 
reader  to  be  told  that  although  the  Dean 
gives  this  advice  to  others^  he  himself  has,  in 
the  second  edition  of  his  work,  altered  and 
struck  out,  altogether  not  fewer  than  eight- 
and-twenty  passages  which  Mr.  Moon  had 
condemned  as  faulty.  For  the  entertainment 
of  the  curious  in  such  matters,  the  original 
passages  as  condemned  in  '  The  Deari's 
'  English ',  and  the  same  passages  as  altered  in 
the  second  edition  of  '  The  Queen^s  English  ', 
are  subjoined  in  parallel  columns.  It  is 
scarcely  requisite  to  say  that  "  altered  "  does 
not  necessarily  imply  "  corrected  ". 


126 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


THE  DEAN  S  ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


I. 

So  far  from  its  being  "so 
"well  known  a  fact"  that  we 
reserve  the  singular  pronouns 
"thou"  and  "thee"  entirely 
for  our  addresses  in  prayer  to 
Him  who  is  the  highest  Per- 
sonality, it  is  not  a  fact. — p.  7. 


Struck  out. 


II. 

You  say,  "  The  great  enemies 
"  to  understanding  anything 
"  printed  in  our  language  are 
"  the  commas.  And  these  are 
"inserted  by  the  compositors 
"  without  the  slightest  com- 
"  punction."  I  should  say  that 
the  great  enemy  to  our  under- 
standing this  sentence  of  yours 
is  the  want  of  commas. — p.  11. 


A  comma  in- 
serted between 
"  compositors  " 
and  "without 
"  the  slightest 
"  compunction  ". 
—p.  99. 


III. 

You  speak  of  persons  "  mend- 
"  ing  their  "  ways  ";  and  in  the 
very  next  paragraph  you  speak 
of  "  the  Queen's  highway ", 
and  of  '•'■'by-Toads''''  and  "joW- 
"  vate  roads  ". — p.  12. 


Struck  out. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


127 


THE   DEAN  S   ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


Struck  out. 


IV. 

Immediately  after  your  speak- 
ing of  "  things  without  life ", 
you  startle  us  with  that  strange 
sentence  of  yours, — "I  will 
"introduce  the  body  of  my 
"  essay  ".  Introduce  the  lody  I 
—p.  13. 

V. 

"  But  to  be  more  serious ", 
as  you  say  in  your  essay,  and 
then  immediately  give  us  a  sen- 
tence  in  which   the  grave  and 
the  grotesque  are  most  incon- 
gruously blended.     I  read,  "^       In  the  papers,  a 
'•''man  does  not  lose  Ms  mother  man  does  not  now 
'■''now  ill  the  papers^    I  have  lose  his  mother.— 
read  figurative  language  which  p.  251 
spoke  of  lawyers  being  lost  in 
their  papers,   and  students  be- 
ing buried  in  their  books ;   but 
I  never  read  of  a  man  losing 
his  mother  in   the  papers. — p. 
13. 

VI. 

In  the  sentence,  "/  only 
"  hring  forward  some  things  ", 
the  adverb  "  only  "  is  similarly 


128 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


THE  DEAM  S  ENGLISH. 

misplaced :  for,  in  the  following 
sentence,  the  words  "Plenty 
"more  might  be  said",  show 
that  the  "  only "  refers  to  the 
"some  things",  and  not  to  the 
fact  of  your  bringing  them  for- 
ward. The  sentence  should 
therefore  have  been,  "I  bring 
"  forward  some  things  only  ". 
— p.  15. 

VII. 

In  your  essay,  you  say,  "/ 
"  remember^  when  the  French 
"  hand  of  the  '  Guides '  were 
'"''in  this  country^  reading  in 
^^the  '  Illustrated  News '". 
Were  the  Frenchmen,  when  in 
this  country,  reading  in  '  The 
'  Illustrated  News '  ?  or  did  you 
mean  that  you  remembered 
reading  in  '  The  Illustrated 
'News'  f—^.  19. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


Struck  out. 


I  remember,  when 
the  French  band  of 
the  '  Guides '  were 
in  this  country,  to 
have  read  in  the 
'  Illustrated  News '. 
—p.  249. 


VIII. 

You  also  say,  "  /f  is  not  so 
''much  of  the  great  highway 
"  itself  of  the  Queen's  English 
"  that  I  iDOuld  now  speah,  as  of 
"  some  of  the  laws  of  the  road  ; 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


129 


THE  dean's  ENGLISH. 

"  the  dy-rules,  to  com2Mre  small 
"  things  with  great,  which  hang 
'■'■up  framed  at  the  'various  sta- 
"  tions ".  What  are  the  great 
things  which  hang  up  framed 
at  the  various  stations  ? — p.  20. 

IX. 

So,  too,  in  that  sentence 
which  introduces  the  lody  of 
your  essay,  you  speak  of  "  the 
"  reluctance  which  we  in  modern 
'•^Europe  have  to  giving  any 
*■'' prominence  to  the  personality 
"  of  single  individuals  in  social 
'■'■  intercourse''' ;  and  yet  it  was 
evidently  not  of  single  indi- 
viduals in  social  intercourse 
that  you  intended  to  speak,  but 
of  giving,  in  social  intercourse, 
any  prominence  to  the  person- 
ality of  single  individuals. — ^p. 
20. 

X. 

Continuing  my  review  of  your 
essay,  I  notice  that  it  is  said  of 
a  traveller  on  the  Queen's  high- 
way, '■''He  dowls  along  it  with 
*'  ease  in  a  vehicle,  which  a  few 
"  centuries  ago  would  have  teen 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


The  by-rules,  so 
to  speaTc,  which 
hang  up  framed  at 
the  various  sta- 
tions.— p.  5. 


Struck  out. 


130  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

THE 
THE  dean's  ENGLISH.  QUEEN's  ENGLISH. 

"  hroTcen  to  pieces  in  a  deep  rut^ 

"  or  come  to  grief  in  a  hottom-  He  bowls    along 

"Z^«  swamp".       There    being  it  with  ease    in  a 

here  no  words  immediately  be-  vehicle,     which     a 

fore    "  come ",   to    indicate    in  few    centuries    ago 

what  tense  that  verb  is,  I  have  would    have    been 

to  turn  back  to  find  the  tense,  broken     to     pieces 

and    am  obliged    to    read    the  in  a  deep    rut,   or 

sentence    thus,     "  would    have  icould    have    come 

"  teen  broken  to    pieces    in  a  to  grief   in  a  bot- 

"  deep  rut,  or  [would  have  been]  tomless     swamp. — 

"  come  to  grief  in  a  bottomless  p.  2. 
"  swamp  ".—p.  28. 

XL 

Further  on,  I  find  you  speak- 
ing of  "  that  fertile  source  of 
^'■mistakes  among  our  clergy^ 
"  the  mispronunciation  of  Scrip- 
"  ture  proper  names ".  It  is 
not  the  "mispronunciation  of 
"  Scripture  proper  names " 
which  is  the  source  of  mistakes  ;  Struck  out 
the  mispronunciation  of  Scrip- 
ture proper  names  constitutes 
the  mistakes  themselves  of 
which  you  are  speaking ;  and 
a  thing  cannot  at  the  same  time 
be  a  source,  and  that  which 
flows  from  it. — p.  29. 


'THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


131 


THE  DEAN  S  ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


XII. 

In  some  sentences  your  pro- 
nouns  have  actually  no  nouns 
to  which  they  apply.     For  ex- 
ample,   you    say,    '^  a  journal       A   journal    pub- 
^'imUishecl   ly    these   jpeople'\    lished   by    the    ad- 
By  what  people  ?     Where  is  the   vocates       of      this 
noun    to    which    this    relative   change.— p.  14. 
pronoun  refers?     In  your  head 
it  may  have  been,  but  it  cer- 
tainly is  not  in  your  essay. — p. 
85. 

XIII. 

Only  eight-and-twenty  nouns  The      paragraph 

intervening    between    the    pro-  has    been    entirely 

noun  "ii"  and  the  noun  ''haUV'  reconstructed.  —  p. 

to  which  it  refers !— p.  37.  42. 


XIY. 

You  make  the  assertion  that 
the  possessive  pronoun  "2i(s" 
never  occurs  in  the  ^^  English 
^^ version  of  the  Bible''\  Look 
"at  Leviticus  xxv,  5,  "That 
"which  groweth  of  its  own 
"accord". — p.  37. 
XV. 

There   are,    in    your    sedbnd 
essay,  some  very  strange  speci- 


In  the  English 
version  of  the  Bi- 
ble, made  in  its 
present  authorized 
form  in  the  reign 
of  James  L — p.  7. 


K  2 


182 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


THE  dean's  ENGLISH. 

mens  of  Queen's  English.  You 
say,  "7%e  one  rule,  of  all  others^ 
''wJiich  he  cites'\  Now  as,  in 
defence  of  your  particular 
views,  you  appeal  so  largely  to 
common  sense,  let  me  ask,  in 
the  name  of  that  common  sense, 
how  can  one  thing  be  another 
thing  ?  How  can  one  rule  be  of 
all  other  rules  the  one  which  I 
cite  ?— p.  54. 

XVI. 

You  say,  ^'■The  verd  is  not 
'■'■  a  strict  neuter-substantixc''\ 
Your  sentence  is  an  explanation 
of  your  use  of  the  word  "  o(Ldly'\ 
in  the  phrase,  "  would  read 
"rather  oddly";  and  oMlij 
enough  you  have  explained  it : 
''would  read^'  is  the  condi- 
tional form  of  the  mrl ;  and 
how  can  that  ever  be  either  a 
neuter-sudstantive,  or  a  substan- 
tive of  any  other  kind? — p.  56. 

XVII. 

Again,  you  say,  "  The  whole 
"  numher  is  divided  into  two 
"  classes  :  the  first  class 'and  the 
"  last  class.     To  the  former  of 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 

The  one  rule 
which  is  supposed 
by  the  ordinary 
rhetoricians  to  re- 
gulate the  arrange- 
ment of  words  in 
sentences,  is,  &c. — 
p.  123. 


In  a  previous 
paragraph  we  now 
read  of  a  verb,  "  of 
that  class  called 
neuter  -  substantive, 
i.e.,  neuter,  and 
akin  in  construc- 
tion to  the  verb- 
substantive  to  he". 
—p.  206. 


^.i 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH.  133 

THE 
THE  dean's  ENGLISH.  QUEEN's  ENGLISH. 

"  these  telong  three :  to  the  lat- 

^Her,  on6'\     That  is,  "To  the 

"  former  of  these  &e?(?7ij7  three  :        „,    ,,      ^ 
„,,,,,,       rz  7      n  V         To  the  former  of 

"to  the  latter   [oelong]   one";  ,, 

-,  ,        ,   ^T-,        .     ,11-.  these  belona-  three : 
one  delong  /  When,  in  the  latter         ,     ,  , ,      ,  7 

^     „  J         i  to  the  latter  oeionqs 

part  of  a  compound  sentence,  ^  ^  ^         ^ 

,  ,,  ...  one. — p.  146. 

we  change  the  nommative,  we  ^ 

must  likewise  change  the  verb, 

that    it    may    agree    with    its 

nominative. — p.  57. 


XVIII. 

The  error  is  repeated  in  the 
very  next  sentence.     You  say, 

"  There  are  three  that  are  ranged  There  are    three 

^^  under  the  descrij^tion  ^JirsV:  that     are     ranged 

"  and  one  that  is  ranged  imder  under  the  descrip- 

^Hhe  description  ^last^^\     That  tion     'first';     and 

is,   "  There  are  three  that  are  there  is  one  that  is 

"ranged  under  the  description  ranged    under    the 

"'first';    and   [there  are]   one  description     'last'. 

"  that  is  ranged  under  the  des-  — p.  146. 
"  cription   '  last '  ".     There  are 
one  ! — p.  57. 

XIX. 


It  appears  to  me  that,  before 
you  have  finished  a  sentence, 
you    have    forgotten    how  you 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

THE 
THE  dean's  ENGLISH.  QUEEN's  ENGLISH. 

began  it.  Here  is  another  in- 
stance. You  say,  "  We  call  a 
"  *■  cup-board '  a  '  ciibhard  \  a 
"  '  half -penny '  a  '  haepenny ', 
'•''and  so  of  many  other  com- 
*^ pound  tcords'\  Had  you  be- 
gun your  sentence  thus,  "  We 
'''' speaTc  of  a  'cup-board'  as  a 
*  cubbard',  of  a  'half-penny'  as 
a  '  haepenny ',  it  would  have 
been  correct  to  say,  "  and  so  of 
"  many  other  compound  words"; 
because  the  clause  would  mean, 
"and  so  [ice  spjeali]  of  many 
"  other  compound  words  " ;  but  53. 
having  begun  the  sentence  with 
"  We  call^''  it  is  sheer  nonsense 
to  finish  it  with  "«?ifZ  so  of''; 
for  it  is  saying,  "and  so  [2^6 
^' call\  of  many  other  com- 
" pound  words". — p.  58. 

XX. 

You  speak  of  rules  laid  down 
"by  the  dictionaries''''  and  the 
'''•professors  of  rhetoric''^;  thus 
substituting,  in  one  case,  the 
works  for  the  men ;  and,  in  the 
other  case,  speaking  of  the  men 
themselves.      "Why    not    either 


We  call  a 

'cup- 

'  board '     a 

'cub- 

'  bard ',     a 

half- 

'  penny '     a 

'hae- 

'  pny ',      and 

we 

similarly    contract 

many    other 

com- 

pound    words 

.— p. 

THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


135 


THE  dean's  ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


speak  of  the  "  compilers  of  dic- 

^^  tionaries'^  and  the  ^^ professors 

^^of  rhetoric'^'    or  else   speak 

of  the  ''dictionaries'^  and  the       Struck  out. 

"  treatises  on  rhetoric '^  f — p.  59" 


XXI. 

The  construction  of  some  of 
your  sentences  is  very  objec- 
tionable:  you  say,  "/  Jiave 
''noticed  the  word  ' party  ^  used 
"for  an  individual^  occurring 
"in  Shalcspeare'''' ;  instead  of, 
"  I  have  noticed,  in  Shak- 
"  speare,  the  word  '  party '  used 
"for  an  individual."  But  how 
is  it  that  you  call  a  man  "an 
"  indimdual "  ? — p.  G5. 


The  word  '  party*, 
for  a  man,  occurs 
in  Shakspeare. — 
p.  246. 


XXII. 

You  say,  "While  treating  of 
"  the  pronunciation  of  those 
"who  minister  in  public,  two 
"  other  words  occur  to  me 
"which  are  very  commonly 
"mangled  by  our  clergy.  One 
"of  these  i&  'covetous',  and  its 
"  substantive  '  covetousness '. 
"  I  hope  some  who  read  these 


136 


THE  BEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


THE  dean's  ENGLISH. 

"  lines  will  be  induced  to  leave 
"  off  pronouncing  them  '  cove- 
*"tious'  and  '  covetiousness '. 
"  I  can  assure  them^  that  when 
"  they  do  thus  call  them^  one, 
"  at  least,  of  their  hearers  has 
"  his  appreciation  of  their  teach- 
"  ing  disturbed  ".  I  fancy  that 
many  a  one  who  reads  these 
lines  will  have  his  appreciation 
of  your  teaching  disturbed. — 
p.  69. 

XXIII. 

Speaking  of  the  word  ^^its", 
you  say,  '^Its  apparent  occur- 
'■''rence  in  the  place  quoted  is 
"  simply  due  to  the  King's 
'''•printers^  who  have  modernised 
"  the  passage  ".  Apparent  oc. 
currence!  It  is  a  real  occur- 
rence. Are  we  not  to  believe 
our  eyes  ? — p.  80. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 

I  hope  that  some 
of  my  clerical  read- 
ers will  be  induced 
to  leave  off  pro- 
nouncing them  '  co- 
'  vetious  '  and  '  co- 
*  vetiousness '.  I 
can  assure  them, 
that  when  thej'-  do 
thus  call  the  words, 
&c.— p.  63. 


Struck  out. 


XXIV. 

As  for  the  "  King's  printers  ", 
it  was  not  they  who  introduced 
the  word  "^^s"  into  the  Eng- 
lish Bible.  The  first  English 
Bible    in    which    the   word    is 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


187 


THE  dean's  ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


found,  is  one  that  was  printed 
at  a  time  when  there  was  no 
King  on  the  English  throne,  An  alteration  by 
consequently  when  there  were  ^'^^  printers,  p.  7. 
no  "King's  printers":  it  was 
printed  during  the  Common- 
wealth.—p.  80. 


XXV. 

The  following  is,  if  inten- 
tional, M^hich  I  cannot  believe, 
the  boldest  instance  of  mis- 
quotation of  Scripture,  to  suit 
a  special  purpose,  that  I  ever 
met  with.  You  say,  "  In  Num- 
*'bers  xii,  2,  we  read,  'Hath 
"'the  Lord  only  spoJcen  by 
'"Moses?  hath  He  not  spoken 
"'also  by  us?'  According  to 
"  some  of  my  correspondents, 
"and  to  Mr.  Moon's  pamphlet, 
"this  ought  to  be  'Hath  the 
"  '  Lord  spolen  only  by  Moses  ?' 
"  I  venture  to  prefer  very  much 
"the  words  as  they  stand". 
Now,  strange  as  it  may  appear 
after  your  assertion,  it  is  never- 
theless a  fact  that  the  words,  as 
you  quote  them,  do  not  occur 
in  the  authorized  version,  known 


138 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


THE  DEAN  S  ENGLISH. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 


as  King  James's  Bible  of  IGll, 
or  in  our  present  version,  or  in 
any  other  version  I  have  ever 
seen ;    and   the   words,    in   the 
order    in    which    you     say    I 
and  your  other  correspondents 
would    have  written  them,    do       The  Dean  found 
occur    in    every    copy    of    the   another       passage, 
Scriptures    to    which     I     have   which     suited     his 
referred !      So   you   very   much    purpose,    and    quo- 
prefer  the  words  as  they  stand,    ted  it. — p.  143. 
do  you  ?    Ha  !  Ila  !  Ha  !     So  do 
I.     When  next  you  write  about 
the    adverb    ^^0)ihj^\    be    sure 
you   quote  only  the  right  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  to  suit  your 
purpose. — p.  82. 


XXVI. 

"  Though  some  of  the  Euro- 
*'pean  rulers  may  be  females, 
'■'■when  siwTcen  of  altogether^ 
"  they  may  be  correctly  classi- 
"fied  under   the   denomination 

kings'".  In  this  sentence, 
the  clause  which  I  have  put  in 
italics  has,  what  our  Gallic 
neighbours  designate,  "a  squin- 
"ting    construction",   it    looks 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 


139 


THE  DEAN  S  ENGLISH. 

two  ways  at  once ;  that  is,  it 
may  be  construed  as  relating  to 
the  words  which  precede,  or  to 
those  which  follow.  Absurd  as 
would  be  the  sentence,  its  con- 
struction is  such,  that  we  may 
understand  you  to  say,  "Some 
"  of  the  European  rulers  may 
"  be  females,  when  spoken  of 
"  altogether."— p.  112. 


THE 
queen's  ENGLISH. 

Though  some  of 
the  European  ru- 
lers may  be  fe- 
males, they  may 
be  correctly  classi- 
fied, when  spoken 
of  altogether,  un- 
der the  denomina- 
tion "  kings  ". — p. 
97. 


XXVII. 

You  say,  "  The  derivation  of 
"  the  word,  as  icell  as  the  usage 
"  of  the  great  majority  of  Eng- 
*'  li^h  loriters,  fix  the  the  si^elling 
"  the  other  way^\  i.  e.  This  [as 
well  as  that]  fx  it!  Excuse 
me,  but  I  must  ask  you  why 
you  write  thus,  even  though  by 
putting  the  question,  I  put  you 
"m  a  fix''''  to  answer  it. — 
p.  116. 

XXVIII. 


"At     last     we     abated 
nuisance    by    enacting. 


the 
that 

"in  future  the  debatable  first 
"syllable  should  be  dropped", 
-p.  118. 


The  derivation 
of  the  word,  as 
well  as  the  usage 
of  the  great  ma- 
jority of  English 
writers,  fixes  the 
spelling  the  other 
way. — p.  83. 


At  last  we  abated 
the  nuisance  by 
enacting  that  in 
future  the  first  syl- 
lable should  be 
dropped. — p.  56. 


140  THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH. 

Of  course  the  Dean  was  wise  to  alter 
his  sentences ; — to  turn  his  words  right  and 
left  in  observance  of  certain  rules.  The 
joke  is,  that  he  should  do  so  after  having 
advised  his  readers  to  do  nothing  of  the 
sort.  We  congratulate  the  Dean  that,  con- 
cerning the  alteration  of  sentences,  we  are 
able  in  his  case  to  reverse  the  old  adage  and 
say,  "  Do  as  the  Dean  does^  and  not  as  the 
"  Dean  says.'''* 


APPENDIX. 


A  Ceiticism  from  The  English 
Churchman. 

The  Queeii's  English.  Stray  Notes  on 
Speaking  and  Spelling.  By  Henry 
Alford,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
(London  :  Strahan  and  Co.  ;  Deigton, 
Bell,  and  Co.,  pp.  25V.) 

We  scarcely  know  whether  to  look  upon  the 
labours  of  Dean  Alford  in  the  cause  of  our 
language  as  a  loss  or  as  a  gain.  In  many  ways 
his  remarks  on  the  Queen's  English  must  have 
been  attended  with  good  results.  The  wide 
circulation  which  they  obtained,  when  first 
published  in  '  Good^  Words  \  has  caused  a  vast 
number  of  persons  to  pay  far  more  attention 
to  this  much-neglected  subject  than  they  had 
ever  done  before.  Many  have  been  brought 
for  the  first  time  to  bestow  a  serious  attention 
on  their  mother-tongue,  and  to  see  that  the 
consideration  of  the  words  in  which  their 
thoughts  are  clothed  is  a  matter  of  no  small 


H2  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

moment,  and  furnishes  a  true  test  of  a  nation's 
character  and  progress.  In  these  papers  they 
have  been  warned  against  the  use  of  mean  and 
shpshod  EngHsh,  against  an  affected  and  un- 
natural style,  and,  in  fact,  against  most  of  the 
faults  which  mar  the  language  of  the  present 
day,  and  which  may  be  found  so  abundant  in 
the  columns  of  the  periodical  press,  and  in  the 
conversation  of  half-educated  persona.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Dean  has  set  an  evil  ex- 
ample by  rendering  the  standard  of  right  and 
wrong  in  language  more  wavering  and  un- 
certain than  ever  :  custom,  according  to  him, 
is  the  only  court  of  appeal,  and  the  laws  of 
grammar  are  to  be  left  to  pedants  and  peda- 
gogues. If  this  is  to  be  the  case,  it  seems 
hopeless  to  bring  many  of  those,  who  habitu- 
ally break  the  laws  of  language,  to  a  sense  of 
their  shortcomings.  They  have  been  brought 
up  from  their  birth  amongst  persons  who  com- 
mit the  same  faults,  and  they  are  unable  to 
see  the  nature  of  these  faults.  If  referred  to 
the  laws  of  grammar,  they  appeal  to  the  au- 
thority of  Dean  Alford  to  show  that  it  is 
pedantic  to  be  guided  by  grammarians  ;  if 
referred  to  the  custom  of  educated  persons, 
they  maintain  their  own  experience  against  that 
of  their  reprovers,  and  declare  that  their  own 
usage  is  the  customary  one,  and  that  the  one 
recommended  to  them  is  contrary  to  custom. 

Amongst  the  paradoxical  statements  of  Dean 
Alford,  we  have  selected  some  of  the  most 
prominent  for  comment.     At  the  time  of  the 


OPINIONS   OF  THE  PRESS.  143 

first  appearance  of  these  papers,  a  great,  and, 
in  our  opinion,  not  unreasonable,  outcry  was 
made  against  the  sanctioning  of  the  phrase, 
"It  is  me".  The  Dean  brings  forth  Dr.  La- 
tham in  support  of  his  opinion,  and  refers  us 
to  the  following  extract  from  that  gentleman's 
'■History  of  the  English  Language'' : — 

"  We  may call  the  word  me  a  secondary  nomi- 
native, inasmuch  as  such  phrases  as  It  is  me — It  is  I, 
are  common.  To  call  such  expressions  incorrect  Eng- 
lish, is  to  assume  the  point.  No  one  says  that  c^est  moi 
is  bad  French,  and  c'est  je  is  good.  The  fact  is,  that 
with  us  the  whole  question  is  a  question  of  degree. 
Has  or  has  not  the  custom  been  sufB.ciently  prevalent 
to  have  transferred  the  forms  me^  ye,  and  yott^  from 
one  case  to  another  ?  Or  perhaps  we  may  say,  is  there 
any  real  custom  at  all  in  favour  of  /,  except  so  far  as 
the  grammarians  have  made  one  ?  It  is  clear  that  the 
French  analogy  is  against  it.  It  is  also  clear  that  the 
personal  pronoun  as  a  predicate  may  be  in  a  different 
analogy  from  the  personal  pronoun  as  a  subject". 

We  have  great  respect  for  Dr.  Latham's 
learning,  but  in  a  matter  like  the  present  we 
cannot  submit  to  his  authority.  Modern  wri- 
ters on  language,  when  treating  of  well-known 
words  and  phrases,  are  often  apt  to  seek  op- 
portunities for  displaying  their  own  ingenuity 
in  giving  unusual  explanations  of  them,  and 
Dr.  Latham  is  by  no  means  free  from  a  par- 
tiality for  crotchets  of  this  kind.  There  is  no 
analogy  between  English  and  French  in  this 
matter.  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  French 
language  that  each  pair  of  words  which  repre- 


144  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

sents  the  different  cases  of  the  singular  personal 
pronouns  in  other  languages  is  in  French 
represented  by  three  words  instead  of  two. 
I,  me— ^'e,  me^  moi ;  thou,  thee — tu^  te^  toi ; 
he,  him — z7,  le,  lui.  Moi,  toi,  lul,  are  used  as 
nominative  cases  when  coming  after  the  verb 
If  Dr.  Latham's  reasoning  is  right,  that  be 
cause  we  have  in  French  c'est  moi,  not  c^est  J6 
therefore,  it  is  right  to  say  in  English,  "it  is 
"me",  not  "it  is  I":  then  it  follows  that 
because  we  say  c'est  toi,  not  c'est  tu,  c'est  lui^ 
not  c'est  il,  it  is  right  to  say  "it  is  thee",  "it 
"is  him",  or  "her".  It  seems  to  us  as  bad 
grammar  to  say,  "it  is  me",  in  English,  as  c^est 
me  in  French.  He  further  says  that  "  when 
"  constructions  are  predicative,  a  change  is 
"what  we  must  expect  rather  than  be  surprised 
"at".  We  see  this  change  of  construction  in 
French  when  the  pronouns  are  predicative, 
because  each  pronoun  has  three  distinct  forms, 
but  as  English,  together  with  the  rest  of  the 
European  languages  (with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted), has  only  two  forms  of  personal 
pronouns,  therefore  the  change  cannot  take 
place  when  the  construction  is  predicative. 
Another  reason  given  by  Dr.  Latham  for  the 
usage  is,  that  me  is  not  the  proper,  but  only  the 
adopted  accusative  of  /,  '  being  in  fact  a 
"  distinct  and  independent  form,  of  the  personal 
"pronoun".  We  do  not  see  why,  because  me 
is  the  adopted  accusative  of  /,  it  should  become 
"  a  secondary  nominative  " .  All  the  European 
languages  of   which  we  have  any  knowledge 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  146 

have  an  adopted  accusative  for  the  first  person 
singular,  but  we  do  not  find  in  them  any  traces 
of  its  being  used  as  a  secondary  nominative 
(though  it  may  appear  so  in  French) ;  why, 
then,  are  we  to  grant  this  hcense  to  English, 
merely  to  gratify  a  careless  habit  which  may 
easily  be  corrected  ?  We  now  come  to  consider 
Dean  Alford's  own  remarks  on  these  three  little 
words.  He  seems  to  think  that  the  reason  for 
the  substitution  of  me  for  /  is  a  shrinking  from 
obtruding  our  own  personality,  and  endeavours 
to  confirm  his  view  by  referring  to  an  instance 
of  the  contrary  practice  in  the  well-known 
passage : — 

"  He  said  unto  them,  *  It  is  I,  be  not  afraid' .  This  is 
a  capital  instance  ;  for  it  us  shows  at  once  why  the 
nominative  should  be  sometimes  used.  The  Majesty 
of  the  Speaker  here,  and  his  purpose  of  re-assuring  the 
disciples  by  the  assertion  that  it  was  none  other  than 
Himself,  at  once  point  out  to  us  the  case  in  which  it 
would  be  proper  for  the  nominative,  and  not  the  ac- 
cusative to  be  used". 

•  We  will  venture  to  say  that  the  sole  reason 
which  the  translators  of  the  Bible  had  for  writ- 
ing "  it  is  I "  in  this  verse,  was  because  they 
considered  it  the  proper  grammatical  phrase, 
and  "  it  is  me "  ungrammatical.  How  would 
Dean  Alford  account  for  the  two  following 
verses.  Matt.  xxvi.  22,  25,  "And  they  were  ex- 
"  ceeding  sorrowful,  and  began  every  one  of  , 
"  them  to  say  unto  Him,  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  "  "  Then 
"Judas,   which  betrayed    him,   answered  and 


146  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

"  said,  Master,  is  it  I  ? "  Certainly,  according 
to  the  Dean's  reasoning,  we  ought  in  each  case 
to  have,  "Is  it  me?"  but  there  is  no  trace  of 
such  a  usage  throughout  the  Bible. 

Dean  Alford  asks  the  question,  "  What  are  we 
"  to  think  of  the  question  whether  than  does  or 
"  does  not  govern  an  accusative  case  ?  " — 

"  The  fact  is,  that  there  are  two  ways  of  constructing 
a  clause  with  a  comparative  and  *  tJiaii' .  You  may  say 
either  ^  than  I''  or  ^thanrne''.  If  you  say  the  former, 
you  use  what  is  called  an  elliptical  expression,  i.e.  an 
expression  in  which  something  is  left  out — and  that 
something  is  the  verb  '  am\  <He  is  wiser  than  I', 
being  filled  out,  would  be,  '  He  is  wiser  than  I  am '. 
*  He  is  wiser  than  me '  is  the  direct  and  complete  con- 
struction". 

We  agree  that  there  arc  two  wa3'^s  of  con- 
structing the  clause — a  right  way  and  a  wrong 
way.  "  He  is  wiser  than  I  "  is  right.  "  He  is 
"  wiser  than  me  "  is  wrong.  There  is  no  occa- 
sion to  make  use  of  an  ellipse  at  all.  Tlian  is 
a  conjunction,  and  cannot,  therefore,  govern  an 
accusative  case,  as  it  is  a  fundamental  rule  of  all 
languages  that  conjunctions  should  couple  like 
cases.  We  cannot  see  in  what  way  "  He  is 
"  wiser  than  me  "  can  be  more  complete  than 
"  He  is  wiser  than  I " .  Again,  we  find  the  rule 
laid  down  by  the  Dean,  that,  when  solemnity  is 
required,  the  construction  in  the  nominative  is 
used ;  and  he  quotes  John  xiv.  28,  "  My  father 
"  is  greater  than  I " .  This  would  be  of  some 
weight  if  he  could  bring  a  single  instance  in 
which  than  of  itself  governed  an  accusative  in 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  147 

a  case  where  solemnity  was  not  required,  but 
we  do  not  think  that  he  will  find  one  in  the 
Bible.  In  Gen.  xxxix.  8,  Joseph  says  to 
Potiphar's  wife,  "  Behold,  my  master  knoweth 
"  not  what  is  with  me  in  the  house,  and  he  hath 
"  committed  all  that  he  hath  to  my  hand  ;  there 
"  is  none  greater  in  the  house  than  I ;  neither 
"hath  he  kept  back",  &c.  We  cannot  suppose 
that  the  translators  wished  to  represent  Joseph 
as  attaching  any  solemnity  to  the  words  "  there 
*'  is  none  greater  than  I " ,  which  are  introduced 
in  the  middle  of  a  long  sentence.  The  reason 
for  their  occurring  thus  is  because  the  transla- 
tors knew  that  the  phrase,  "  there  is  none  greater 
"than  me",  is  entirely  ungramraatical.  Dean 
Alford  considers  that  the  invariable  use  of 
"than  whom",  instead  of  "than  who",  is  a 
proof  that  than  governs  an  accusative  case,  as  in 
'  Paradise  Lost ' ,  ii.  299 : — 

"Which  when  Beelzebub  perceived,  than  whom, 
*' Satan  except,  none  higher  sat''. 

"We  quite  agree  that,  to  say  "than  who", 
vrould  be  intolerable  in  this  instance  to  most 
ears,  but  we  do  not  consider  that  this  single 
anomalous  expression  is  enough  to  warrant  us 
in  saying  that  "than"  takes  the  accusative. 
The  expressions  "  than  whom  " ,  "  than  which  " , 
are  very  sparingly  used  in  writing,  and  never 
in  ordinary  conversation.  Probably  the  first 
person  who  wrote  "than  whom",  did  so  in 
ignorance  of  the  rules  of  grammar,  and  the 
error  was  so  perpetuated  by  his  copyists  that  it 

L  2 


148  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

became  a  settled  usage.  Another  explanation 
of  it  is,  that  the  "m"  was  added  for  the  sake 
of  euphony.  However  that  may  be,  we  cannot 
allow  that  one  anomaly  of  this  kind  can  justify 
us  in  going  counter  to  the  grammar  and  usage 
of  all  languages. 

Of  course,  when  than  couples  a  pronoun  to  a 
word  in  the  accusative  case,  the  pronoun  must 
also  be  put  in  the  accusative  ;  we  must  say  "He 
"likes  you  better  than  me",  and  not  "he  likes 
"  you  better  than  I  "  ;  the  latter  phrase  is  inad- 
missible.* In  our  opinion  this  shows  completely 
.  that  than  is  nothing  more  than  a  coiy unction, 
and  it  is  an  unheard-of  thing  in  any  language 
that  a  conjunction  can  govern  an  accusative. 
As  is  a  word  of  precisely  the  same  character  as 
than :  would  Dean  Alford  defend  the  vulgarisms, 
"  I  am  as  tall  as  him  " ,  "  Pie  is  as  tall  as  me  "  ? 

A  correspondent  has  kindly  sent  us  a  well- 
known  example  of  the  latter  usage  from  one  of 
our  standard  poets  : — 

"  The  nations  not  so  blest  as  tJiee 
"  Must  in  their  turn  to  tyrants  fall, 

"Whilst  thou  shalt  flourish,  great  and  free, 
"  The  dread  and  envy  of  them  all." 

Thomson's  ' Bule  Britannia* 

In  our  opinion  the  first  line  of  this  stanza  is 
utterly  indefensible. 
The  Dean  upholds  the  use  of  the  verb  "to 

*  "  He  likes  you  better  tlian  me ' '  is.  He  likes  you  better 
tlian  {he  likes]  me  ;  and,  "  He  likes  you  better  than  /" 
is,  He  likes  you  better  than  I  \liTce  yori].  The  meaning 
of  each  phrase  is  widely  different. — G.W.M. 


\.i 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  149 

"  leave",  in  a  neuter,  or,  as  he  bids  us  term  it, 
an  absolute  sense.  He  defends  the  sentence  *'  I 
"shall  not  leave  before  December  1"  on  the 
ground  that  the  verb  is  still  active,  but  the  ob- 
ject is  suppressed.  We  deny  that  to  "leave" 
is  here  used  in  an  active  sense;  it  is  synony- 
mous with  "to  go  away",  "  depart",  &c.,  which 
are  neuter  verbs.  The  Dean  brings  forward 
the  instances  of  the  verbs  "to  read"  and  "to 
"wTite",  as  though  they  were  analogous  cases, 
because  they  may  be  used  at  will  either  transi- 
tively or  intransitively.  These  verbs,  however, 
themselves  express  an  occupation,  just  as  much 
as  to  run,  to  sit,  or  to  stand.  If  we  wish  to 
know  how  any  one  is  spending  his  time,  it  is  a 
suflScient  answer  to  say  "  He  is  reading  "  ;  if  we 
are  aware  of  that  fact,  and  wish  to  know  what 
is  the  object  of  his  study,  then  we  must  use  the 
verb  transitively,  and  say,  "  He  is  reading  '  The 
" '  Queen! 8  English '  ",  or  any  other  book.  "  To 
"read"  has  become  to  all  of  us  a  complete 
notion  ;  "  to  leave  "  is  not  so  ;  and,  as  we  said 
before,  must  be  used  as  an  equivalent  for  to 
depart,  or  go  away,  in  the  phrase  quoted.  This 
is  an  unnecessary  extension  of  its  signification, 
and  as  all  such  extensions  give  rise  to  more  or 
less  ambiguity,  they  should  be  avoided.  The 
use  of  a  verb  in  an  intransitive  as  well  as  a 
transitive  sense  must  always  be  a  matter  de- 
pending entirely  on  authority.  Such  a  use  of 
"  to  leave"  was  ignored  formerly,  and  has  arisen 
only  within  comparatively  few  years  from  the 
carelessness  of  slipshod  speakers  and  writers. 


150  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

In  the  present  day  it  is  eschewed  by  good  wri- 
ters of  English ;  by  others  it  is  used  invariably, 
but  quite  unnecessarily,  in  a  neuter  sense. 

In  Dr.  Alford's  objections  to  the  restrictions 
placed  by  grammarians  on  the  words  first  and 
last^  former  and  latter^  he  makes  the  following 
remarks : — 

"  '  First '  is  unavoidably  used  of  that  one  in  a  series 
■with  which  we  begin,  whatever  be  the  number  which, 
follow  ;  whether  many  or  few.  Why  should  not  last  bo 
used  of  that  one  in  a  series  with  wliich  we  end,  whatever 
bo  the  number  which  preceded,  whether  many  or  few  { " 

We  should  have  thought  that  the  answer  was 
quite  evident.  First  has  two  meanings ;  it 
stands  for  the  superlative  of  the  comparative 
former^  and  for  the  ordinal  corresponding  to  the 
cardinal  number  one.  Last  is  -used  only  as  the 
superlative  of  latter;  it  cannot,  therefore,  be 
ever  used  in  numerical  statements.  In  speaking 
of  a  book  in  two  volumes,  which  are  numbered 
1  and  2,  we  refer  to  the  1st  or  2nd  volume; 
but  1st  is  not  here  the  same  as  first.,  the  super- 
lative of  former.  This  is  easily  shown  in  the 
case  of  most  of  our  large  public  schools,  where  the 
6th  form  is  the  first,  and  the  1st  form  the  last  in 
the  school.  If  we  had  such  a  word  as  oneth  to 
stand  as  the  ordinal  of  one,  we  should  say  that 
the  6th  form  is  the  first,  and  the  oneth  the  last ; 
as  it  is,  wx  are  obliged  to  make  first  do  duty  in 
each  case. 

We  do  not  agree  theoretically  with  the  Dean's 
remarks  on  the  aspiration  of  the  "  h  "  in  Jiumlle^ 


OPINION S  OF  THE  PRESS.  151 

though  practically  we  think  it  advisable  to  follow 
the  growing  usage  of  the  day,  and  sound  the 
"  h ".  It  was  formerly  almost  as  common  to 
say  uvible  as  it  was  to  say  onoiir  and  {li)our.  In 
regard  to  the  words  '■^  ospUar\  "er5",  and 
"  umlle ",  our  author  says  that  all  of  them  are 
"  very  offensive,  but  the  last  of  them  by  far  the 
"  worst,  especially  when  heard  from  officiating 
"  Clergymen ".  We  believe  that  the  reason 
why  the  Clergy  have  so  commonly  adopted  the 
practice  of  sounding  the  "h"  in  liumtle,  is 
because  educated  persons  cannot  endure  the 
idea  of  its  being  said  of  them  that  they  drop 
their  "h's";  directly,  therefore,  the  custom 
became  prevalent  of  aspirating  liunible^  the 
Clergy  at  once  took  it  up.  It  will  be  the  same 
as  soon  as  it  becomes  at  all  usual  to  sound  the 
"h"  in  honour,  honesty,  &c.  We  deny  that 
'■'•uinble  and  hearty  no  man  can  pronounce  with- 
"out  a  pain  in  his  throat"  ;  it  is  just  as  easy  to 
pronounce  as  "under  heaven". 

In  one  or  two  places  the  Dean  becomes  hyper- 
cfitical ;  for  instance  : — 

* '  By-the-by,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  phrase  which 
came  in  during  the  Crimean  war,  '  The  right  man  in  the 
right  place''  ?  How  can  the  right  man  ever  be  in  the 
wrong  place  I  or  the  wrong  man  in  the  right  place?  We 
used  to  illustrate  the  unfitness  of  things  by  saying  that 
the  round  man  had  got  into  the  square  hole,  and  the 
square  man  into  the  round  hole ;  that  was  correct  enough; 
but  it  was  the  putting  incongruous  things  together  that 
was  wrong,  not  the  man,  nor  the  hole  ". 

It  is  the  custom  in  all  languages,  when  it  is 


162  OPimONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

desired  that  an  idea  shall  be  impressed  forcibly 
on  a  reader,  to  repeat  the  word  in  some  way  or 
other.  Thus,  in  the  2nd  chapter  of  Genesis, 
the  original  of  "  thou  shalt  surely  die  "  is  "  dy- 
"  ing  thou  shalt  die "  ;  so  likewise,  in  the  New 
Testament,  with  the  Hebraism,  "  with  desire 
"have  I  desired".  The  Greek  tragedians 
abound  in  such  pleonasms,  especially  in  the 
repetition  of  an  adjective,  by  qualifying  the 
verb  with  the  adverb  formed  from  the  adjective. 
In  the  present  instance,  "  the  right  man  in  the 
"place",  sounds  wretchedly  flat  in  comparison 
with  "  the  right  man  in  the  right  place  ". 

There  are  many  other  remarks  in  this  work 
with  which  we  cannot  agree,  but  we  have  no 
wish  to  weary  our  readers  with  further  criti- 
cisms on  this  somewhat  dry  subject. — The  Eng- 
lish Churchman^  January  28,  1864. 


THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH. 

A    Criticism    from    '  The    Patriot.'' 

Dean  Alford  has  collected  into  a  book  his  papers 
contributed  to  '  Good  Words''  and,  of  course, 
has  subjected  them  to  a  fresh  and  final  revision. 
He  tells  us,  indeed,  that  "now,  in  a  considerably 
"altered  form,  they  are  presented  to  the  pub- 
"  lie  "  ;  so  that  we  may  fairly  regard  both  the 
canons  and  the  composition  of  this  volume  as 
the   deliberate   and   final    setting   forth   of    the 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  15i 

Dean's  notions  of  the  proprieties  of  the  English 
language.  No  plea  of  hasty  writing,  such  as 
unfortunate  newspaper  writers,  or  public  lec- 
turers, or  even  magazine  contributors,  might 
fitly  urge  is  valid  here.  The  Dean  tells  us, 
too — what  we  are  very  glad  to  learn,  and  what 
speaks  well  for  the  Christian  placability  of  both 
parties — that  the  somewhat  sharp  passage  of 
arras  betwixt  Mr.  Moon  and  himself  has  ended 
in  an  invitation  tO  dinner  and  a  real  friendship. 
"  From  antagonism  we  came  to  intercourse ; 
"and  one  result  of  the  controversy  I  cannot 
"  regret — that  it  has  enabled  me  to  receive  Mr. 
"  Moon  as  a  guest,  and  to  regard  him  hencefor- 
"  ward  as  my  friend."  Will  this  deprive  the 
public  of  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Moon's  criticisms 
upon  the  present  volume  ?  We  should  be  sorry 
to  think  so  ;  for  there  really  is  much  to  be  said 
about  it,  and,  we  fear,  much  ault  to  be  found 
with  it.  Dean  Alford  has  rendered  good  service 
to  his  generation.  He  was  an  exemplary  work- 
ing clergyman ;  and  he  is,  we  doubt  not,  as 
exemplary  a  Dean.  He  is  an  excellent  poet, 
and  his  beautiful  hymn,  "  Lo,  the  storms  of  life 
"  are  lreakin(J\  sung  to  sweet  music,  has  often 
soothed  our  soul.  We  cannot  call  him  an 
accomplished  Greek  scholar ;  but  he  has  com- 
piled the  most  useful  working  Greek  Testament 
of  our  generation;  amenable  to  a  thousand 
adverse  criticisms,  but  laboriously  bringing  to- 
gether almost  all  that  working  clergymen  need. 
But  with  all  this  we  cannot  regard  him  as  an 
authority   on    the    philosophy   of    the    English 


154  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

language,  or  as  an  example  of  its  more  accurate 
use.  It  is  strange  that  men  should  imagine 
themselves  that  which  they  are  so  far  from 
being,  that  they  are  unconscious  even  of  their 
defects.  Only  a  scholar  of  the  widest  philo- 
logical reading  and  of  the  nicest  discrimination 
should  have  presumed  to  write  a  book  on  the 
use  and  abuse  of  the  Queen's  English.  No 
doubt  Dean  Alford  thinks  that  he  is  such  a 
scholar,  and  that  his  composition,  if  not  in  his 
ordinary  sermons,  yet  in  this  volume,  is  fault- 
less. We  regret  to  be  compelled  to  think  other- 
wise. His  style,  where  not  positively  ungranl- 
matical,  is  loose,  and  flabby,  and  awkward ;  his 
sentences  are  ungainly  in  construction,  and 
sometimes  positively  ludicrous  in  the  meaning 
which  they  involuntarily  convey.  We  will  take 
a  iew  instances ;  and  we  begin  with  the  thii-d 
sentence  in  the  book. 

"It"  (the  term  "Queen's  English")  "is  one 
"  rather  familiar  and  conventional,  than  strictly 
"accurate".  As  Dean  Alford  uses  it,  the  ad- 
verb "rather"  qualifies  the  terms  "familiar" 
and  "  conventional ".  He  means  it  to  qualify  the 
term  "  strictly  accurate  ",  and  should  have  said, 
"  It  is  one  familiar  and  conventional  rather  than 
"  strictly  accurate". 

"  For  language  wants  all  these  processes,  as 
"well  as  roads  do",  is  scarcely  so  elegant  as 
a  critical  Dean  should  have  written. 

Again :  "  And  it  is  by  processes  of  this  kind 
"in  the  course  of  centuries,  that  our  English 
"tongue  has  been  ever  adapted ",  &c.  ;  instead 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  155 

of  "It  is  by  processes  of  this  kind  that,  in  the 
"  course  of  centuries,  our  English  tongue  ",  &c. 

"  Carefulness  about  minute  accuracies  of  in- 
"  flexion  and  grammar  may  appear  to  some  very 
"  contemptible ".  We  trust  that  the  Dean  is 
not  one  of  these;  but  would  it  not  have  been 
better  to  have  written,  "  may  to  some  appear 
"  very  contemptible  "  ? 

"  The  other  example  is  one  familiar  to  you, 
"  of  a  more  solemn  character  ".  And  what  is  it 
to  those  given  to  levity?  The  Dean  meant  to 
say,  "  The  other  example  is  of  a  more  solemn 
"  character,  and  is  one  familiar  to  you". 

*'  The  first  remark  that  /  have  to  make  shall 
'■''he  on  the  trick  now  so  universal  across  the 
"Atlantic".  Here  tenses  are  curiously  con- 
fused ;  and  the  Dean  apparently  forgets  that 
the  term  imiversal  is  absolute,  and  does  not  ad- 
mit of  a  comparative. 

"  The  late  Archdeacon  Hare,  in  an  article  on 
"  English  orthography  in  the  '  Philological  Ma- 
"  ^seum '".  We  did  not  know  that  the  EngKsh 
orthography  of  the  *  Philological  Musetim '  was 
peculiar  or  needed  an  article.  The  Dean  means 
" in  an  article  in  the  ^Philological  Museum '  on 
"English  orthography". 

"  We  do  not  follow  rule  in  spelling  the  other 
"  words,  but  custom  ".  An  elegant  writer  would 
have  said,  "  In  spelling  the  other  words  we  do 
"not  follow  rule,  but  custom". 

These  specimens  occur  in  the  first  twelve 
pages  ;  how  many  the  entire  volume  would 
afford,  is  beyond  our  calculation.     A  little  farther 


156  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

on  we  read: — "As  I  write  these  lines,  which  I 
"do  while  waiting  in  a  refreshment-room  at 
"  Reading,  between  a  Great  Western  and  a 
"  South-Eastern  train  ".  We  did  not  know  that 
the  refreshment-room  at  Reading  stood  between 
two  trains. 

With  many  of  Dean  Alford's  canons,  both  of 
derivation,  pronunciation,  and  even  spelling, 
we  have  almost  equal  fault  to  find ;  but  we 
forbear.  We  must  say,  however,  that,  notwith- 
standing Mr.  Latham's  authority,  and  at  the  risk 
of  being  reckoned  "  grammarians  of  the  smaller 
"  sort ",  we  are  still  unconvinced  of  the  pro- 
priety of  saying,  even  colloquially,  "  It's  me  ", 
and  of  the  pedantry  of  saying,  "  It's  I ". 

We  must  add,  too,  that  a  somewhat  unseemly 
egotism  and  gossipiness  pervade  the  book — 
pardonable  enough  in  popular  lectures,  but 
surely  to  be  excluded  from  a  philological  trea- 
tise. The  Dean  seems  to  have  no  plan,  but  just 
to  say  anything  that  comes  first,  and  to  say  it 
anyhow.  Perhaps  he  thinks  the  chit-chat  of  a 
Dean  sufficient  for  all  persons  of  lesser  dignity. 

Dean  Alford,  of  course,  says  many  Just  and 
useful  things,  and  will,  we  trust,  do  something 
to  correct  some  errors  and  vulgarisms.  But  it 
is  one  thing  to  read  Dean  Alford's  sentences, 
and  it  is  another  to  read  Macaulay's. — ''PaVriot^ 
January  14,  1864. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  157 

A  Plea  for  the  Queen'' s  English.  By  Henry 
Alford,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury.  '  Good 
'  TFbrc?5 ',  March,  1863. 

A  CKITICISM  BY  PERNICKITY  PAWKIE,  GENT. 

[From  the  ^Glasgow  Christian  News i'^ 

The  "Southrons"  (so  we  at  one  time  called 
them)  are  unlike  any  other  of  the  nations  in 
regard  to  the  treatment  which  they  bestow  upon 
their  language.  They  call  it  their  "  mother- 
"  tongue  ",  and  yet,  if  the  Dean  of  Canterbury 
be  a  trustworthy  witness,  their  mothers  did  not 
speak  it ;  if  you  check  any  Southron  for  mis- 
pronouncing a  word,  he  will  gravely  inform  you 
that  he  goes  by  Entick,  Sheridan,  Knowles,  or 
somebody  else.  You  cannot  get  the  Southrons, 
as  a  people,  to  "  go  by  "  any  one  authority  for 
five  minutes  at  a  time  in  the  accentuation  of 
their  l)rother-ior\g\iQ ;  and  yet  you  will  find 
yourself  greatly  mistaken  if  you  suppose  that 
you  are  getting  from  any  Southron  the  credit 
of  speaking  "the  Queen's  English,"  unless 
you  condescend  to  imitate  some  foppish  speaker 
of  that  licentious  language. 

The  Dean  of  Canterbury  has  written  what  he 
calls  'J.  Plea  for  the  Queen's  English''  in 
'  Good  Words '  for  March ;  and  I  shall  be  bold 
enough  to  show  that,  in  some  particulars,  the 
Dean  has  really  written  adversely  towards  the 
Queen's  English. 


158  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

The  Dean  has  written  as  follo^YS  : — 

"  In  common  talk  the  pronouns  '  /',  '  Ae ',  *  sJie ',  aro 
freely  used.  But  when  the  form  of  the  context  throws 
these  pronouns  into  unusual  prominence,  we  shrink,  I 
suppose,  from  making  so  much  of  ourselves  or  one 
another  as  the  use  of  them  in  the  nominative  case  would 
imply.  Was  there  ever  one  of  us  who,  when  asked 
*  Who's  there '  ?  did  not  first  and  most  naturally  reply, 
'  It's  me '.  And  though  reproved,  and  it  may  be  even 
corrected  as  a  child  for  the  mistake,  which  of  us  is  there 
that  does  not  continually  fall  into  it,  if  it  he  one,  again 
and  again?" 

Now  let  us  observe  what  the  Dean  says  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  above  passage :  he  questions 
if  the  act  of  placing  the  word  me  where  /  ought 
to  be  is  a  mistake !  Dr.  Caird  should  be  most 
truly  grateful  to  Dean  Alford ;  for  the  Doctor 
says — "Believing  in  that  love  stronger  than 
"  death  which  for  me,  and  such  as  me^  drained 
"the  cup  of  untold  sorrows".  If  an  Enghsh 
Dean  has  not  something  useful  to  do,  let  him 
by  all  means  avoid  teaching  us  had  English. 
The  shade  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  ought  to  be 
most  truly  grateful  to  Dean  Alford;  for  the 
Dean  is  of  opinion  that  the  following  may  not 
really  be  a  mistake  : — 

"Yet  oft  in  Holy  Writ  we  see 
"  Even  such  weak  minister  as  me 
"  May  the  oppressor  bruise  ". 

Any  one  who  has  given  the  least  attention  to 
the  subject  must  have  observed  that  the  Dean 
is  pleading  for  a  blunder  which  is  just  the  ever- 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  159 

lasting  one  on  both  sides  of  the  Tweed  :  and 
that  the  Dean's  idea  of  its  being  the  result  of  a 
sweet  modesty  is  the  veriest  nonsense — as  if, 
forsooth  the  spirit  of  egotism  is  not  as  fre- 
quently practised  under  the  word  me  as  under 
the  word  //  * 

The  guide  in  the  matter  is  very  simple :  let 
the  verl  be  supplied,  and  the  monstrous  blunder 
frowns  in  all  its  hideousness.  Let  the  sentences 
which  I  have  above  quoted  from  Dr.  Caird 
and  Sir  "Walter  Scott  hQ  implemented  (as  our  law 
jargon  words  it),  and  the  blunder  glares  out 
upon  us.     Let  us  write  as  follows : — 

"Believing  in  tliat  love  stronger  than  death  which 
for  me,  and  such  as  me  [am],  drained  the  cup  of  untold 
Borrows  " — '  Beligion  of  Common  Life\  p.  66. 

"  Yet  oft  in  Holy  "Writ  we  see 
"  Even  such  weak  minister  as  me  [am] 
"  May  the  oppressor  bruise  ". 

'Marmion,^  canto  v,  xxxi. 


*  "This  shrinking  from  the  use  of  the  personal  pronoun, 
this  autophoby,  as  it  may  be  called,  is  not  indeed  a  proof 
of  the  modesty  it  is  designed  to  indicate ;  any  more  than 
the  hydrophobia  is  a  proof  that  there  is  no  thirst  in  the 
constitution.  On  the  contrary  it  rather  letrays  a  vwr- 
hidly  sensitive  self -consciousness.'''' 

"  So  far  indeed  is  the  anxiety  to  suppress  the  personal 
pronoun  from  being  a  sure  criterion  of  humility,  that 
there  is  frequently  a  ludicrous  contrast  between  the  con- 
ventional generality  of  our  language  and  the  egotism  of 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  it." 

' '  Modesty  must  dwell  within,  in  the  heart ;  and  a  brief 
/  is  the  modestest,  most  natural,  simplest  word  I  can 
use."     'Guesses  at  Truth,'  pp.  142,  148,  150. 


160  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

But  it  is  not  in  grammar  only  that  the  Gre- 
cian Dean  endeavours  to  mislead  us  Scotchmen. 
He  tries  his  hand  also  at  pronunciation.  He 
writes  as  follows : 

"  We  still  sometimes,  even  in  good  society,  hear 
ospital,  erh,  and  umble— all  of  them  very  offensive,  but 
the  last  of  them  by  far  the  worst ". 

Will  it  be  believed  that  the  dictionaries  are 
against  Dean  Alford  (all  except  two)  in  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  above  words  ?  It  surely  re- 
quires a  man  to  be  possessed  of  not  a  little 
meism  before  he  presumes  to  write  as  he  has 
done  respecting  the  foregoing  words.  The  fol- 
lowing dictionaries  are  in  his  favour  (they  are 
but  two) — namely  Webster  and  Jameson  ;  while, 
on  the  contrary.  Walker,  Sheridan,  Perry, 
Knowles,  Smart,  Wright,  Craig,  and  Surenne 
are,  all  of  them,  against  the  Dean ;  and 
Worcester  countenances  both  ways. 

The  fact  is,  that  this  word  is  simply  the 
French  one — humble — and  was  pronounced  by 
our  Norman  ancestors  as  the  above  eight  dic- 
tionaries continue  to  pronounce  it :  two  only 
being  against  them,  and  one  of  these  an 
American. 

The  Dean  says,  "The  English  Prayer-Book 
"has  at  once  settled  the  pronunciation  of  this 
"  word  [humdle]  for  us,  by  causing  us  to  give 
"God  our  '■humUe  and  hearty  thanJcs^  in  the 
"  General  Thanksgiving.  ITindle  and  hearty  ", 
says  the  Dean,  "  no  man  can  pronounce  without 
"  a  pain  in  his  throat". 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  161 

Did  ever  such  drivelling  proceed  from  a 
very  Reverend  Dean  of  Canterbury  ?  But  this 
is  not  all  ;  for,  giving  the  vulgar  mode  of 
uttering  the  entire  sentence,  the  critic  is  so 
utterly  given  over  to  special  pleading  that  he 
writes  as  follows  : — 

*'Umble  and  Tiearty  no  man  can  pronounce  without 
a  pain  in  his  throat ;  and  '  umhlanarty '  he  certainly 
never  was  meant  to  say". 

If  this  very  Reverend  Dean  decides  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  Greek  language  on  such  frivo- 
lous data  as  he  does  this  word  humble^  T  must 
hold  him  to  be  of  but  little  worth  as  a  philolo- 
gist; and  I  advise  my  compatriots  to  let  most 
votes  carry  the  day.  With  our  eight  dictionaries 
(all  of  them  of  much  higher  standing  than  the 
two  opponents)  let  us  decide  that  the  word 
"  Tiumble  "  sliall  not  te  aspirated. 

The  very  Reverend  Dean  appears  to  me  to  be 
out  of  his  element  when  treating  of  a  matter  of 
taste.     He  writes  as  follows  : — 

"tumble  and  hearty  is  the  only  pronunciation  which 
will  suit  the  alliterative  style  of  the  prayer,  which  has 
in  it  not  only  with  our  lips  but  in  our  lives  " 

There  is  coarseness  and  the  absence  of  poetic 
tact  in  this  observation.  Hmnble^  in  order  to 
sympathise  with  the  sentiment  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  word,  ought  to  be  umble.  H  is 
a  hearty  letter  :  Z7  is  despondent.  Alliteration^ 
if  it  teaches  anything  in  such  a  matter,  teaches 

M 


162  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

the  very  reverse  of  this  unsympathetic  and 
unpoetic  work-day  Dean's  whimsies  upon  the 
subject.  The  word  Jiumble  ought,  in  the  prayer, 
to  be  enunciated  with  a  pause — it  ought  to  be 
uttered  with  feeling^  which  requires  a  pause — it 
ought  not  to  be  followed  rapidly  by  the  words 
"  and  lieartij''^  which  ought  to  express  a  different 
kind  of  feeling — a  warmth,  a  cordiality,  a  vigour. 
Let  the  Dean  appeal  to  anything  but  some' hum- 
drum in  holy  orders^  and  it  will  be  given  against 
him,  or  I  am  in  the  last  degree  mistaken. 

The  Dean  is  pleased  also  to  be  facetious  upon 
"penny-a-liners".  We,  Scotchmen,  have  no 
especial  complaint  to  make  against  him  on  this 
score ;  but  this  we  may  say,  he  may  just  as  well 
attempt  "  to  stem  the  Thames  with  a  pitchfork' 
as  to  stereotype  the  "  Queen's  English  "  as  he 
calls  it.  Benjamin  Franklin  could  bring  down 
the  electric  fluid  from  the  clouds — an  invention 
which  has  carried  language  with  the  speed  of 
lightning,  but  he  could  not  control  human  lan- 
guage, and  yet  his  /-ism  was  me-'i&m  when 
compared  with  the  efforts  of  the  Dean  upon 
this  particular.  In  a  letter  to  Noah  Webster, 
dated  Dec.  26, 1789,  Franklin  writes  as  follows  :— 


"  I  find  that  several  new  words  have  been  introduced 
into  our  parliamentary  language.  For  example,  I  find 
a  verb  formed  from  the  substantive  notice.  I  should  not 
have  noticed  this  were  it  not.  Also  another  verb  from 
the  substantive  advocate.  The  gentleman  who  advocates 
or  has  advocated  that  motion.  Another  from  the  sub- 
stantive progress.  The  committee  having  progressed. 
The  wordopposed  (though  not  a  now  word)  I  find  used  in 


OPINIONS   OF  THE  FRE&&.  Irta 

a  new  manner,  as,  The  gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to 
this  new  measure.  If  you  happen  to  be  of  my  opinion 
(continues  Franklin)  with  respect  to  these  innovations, 
you  will  use  your  authority  in  reprobating  them  ". 


No  doubt  Dean  Alford  would  have  lent  a 
helping  hand  here ;  but  with  what  success  ? 
The  progress  of  language  is  a  thing  far 
mightier  than  the  breath  of  Deans  ! 

I  take  exception  to  the  Dean's  treatment  of 
the  word  press^  which  has  not  yet  ceased  to  be  a 
collective  noun.  He  has  no  right  (on  liis  prin- 
ciples) to  write  as  follows  : — 

'■''Allude  to  is  used  in  a  new  sense  by  the 
"  press,  and  not  only  by  fhem^  but".  The  Dean 
ought  here  to  have  written  "ii"  instead  of 
'■'■them  f^  and  yet  we  find  this  teacher  playing  him- 
self with  the  inaccuracy  (so  he  calls  it)  of  saying 
"  twice  one  are  two  ",  and  "  three  times  three  are 
^'■nine^\  In  order  to  prove  the  grammatical 
incorrectness  of  these  two  assertions,  the  clever 
Dean  alters  the  form  of  the  expression,  and, 
'■^presto^\^  the  juggle  is  concluded.  "What  we 
"  want  (says  the  Dean,  being  simply  this,  that 
"  three  taken  three  times  makes  up,  is  equal  to 
"nine".  Now,  admitting  this  to  be  correct, 
Mr.  Dean — admitting  thi^ee  not  to  be  2^lural  any 
more  than  one  (which  is  just  what  yoio  should 
prove,  but  also  just  what  you  do  not  attempt  to 
prove)  nevertheless,  admitting  your  improved 
premises  ;  yet,  when  we  say  what  you  "  want  " 
to  say  in  another  mode,  if  that  other  mode  have 
a    plural  nominative,    the  verb   must    also   be 

M  2 


164  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

plural ;  and  we  say  "  three  times''^  must  be  plural, 
and  so  must  even  three. 

I  might  for  example,  say  of  a  man  and  his 
wife — "they  twain  are  one  flesh";  but  you,  Mr. 
Dean,  might  reply  to  me  (as  you  are  now  doing), 
*'  What  we  want  to  say  is  simply  this — this  man 
"^5,  and  that  woman  is,  one  flesh — makes  up,  is 
*'  equal  to  one  flesh."  All  very  good !  But  so 
long  as  we  speak  of  them  as  twain,  we  must  (in 
order  to  be  grammatical)  employ  the  word  are 
respecting  them. 

It  appears  to  me,  Pernickity  Pawkie,  that  this 
Southron  and  Prelatic  Dean  has  mystified  and 
bewildered  his  reasoning  powers  respecting  the 
grammar  of  the  multiplication  table  by  a  highly- 
wrought  abstraction  upon  the  Athanasian  Creed 
respecting  the  triune  and  official  subsistencies 
of  the  Godhead — "  Three  in  one  sense,  and  07ie 
"in  another" — may,  by  some  misconception  of 
the  fact,  have  deranged  the  ideas  of  numerical 
relation  in  the  Dean's  mind,  and  it  will  account 
for  his  hallucination  in  reference  to  the  mode  of 
stating  the  multiplication  table.  It  is  this 
Dean's  idiosyncracy  to  refine. — The  Christian 
News,  May  2,  1868. 


THE  QUEEN'S  ENGLISH. 

A  Criticism  from  Routledge's  Magazine, 
Oct.,  1864. 

The   study   of   language    is    one   of   the   most 
instructive  and,  at  the  same  time,   one  of  the 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS,  165 

most  interesting  occupations  with  which  we  can 
employ  ourselves ;  and,  in  the  present  age  of 
advanced  education,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
for  everybody  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of  his  own 
language,  and  to  read,  speak,  and  write  it  in 
accordance  with  the  known  rules  on  the  subject. 
However  well  taught  a  man  may  be  in  other 
branches  of  study,  he  will  never  make  his 
way  in  the  world  unless  he  can  speak  cor- 
rectly, since  correct  speaking  is,  as  it  were, 
the  outward  attribute  of  the  gentleman,  and 
the  one  by  which  his  other  qualifications  are 
judged 

The  Dean  is  evidently  not  a  graceful  writer 
of  English,  as  he  is  sure  to  have  put  forth  all 
his  strength  in  the  composition  of  a  book  on 
language.  This  strength,  however,  seems  to 
consist  in  devising  the  most  unnatural  manner 
of  writing  good  English,  and  in  violating  some 
of  Lord  Kames's  most  important  rules  with 
regard  to  words  expressing  things  connected 
in  thought  being  placed  as  near  together  as 
possible. 

'  The  Qiieenh  Enrjlisli^  we  must  state,  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  reprint  from  a  widely  circulated 
periodical  entitled  '  Qood^  Words^  and  the 
subject  is  said  to  be  'presented  to  the  public 
'  in  a  considerably  altered  form.' 

This  is  strictly  true,  for,  having  compared  the 
reprint  with  the  original  articles,  we  are  able  to 
compliment  the  Dean  on  the  many  judicious 
alterations  he  has  made ;  thanks,  perhaps,  to 
the  suggestions  given  by  a  gentleman  styled,  in 


166  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

a  country  paper,  "  a  knight,  bearing  on  his 
"  shield  the  emblem  of  the  lunar  orb",  and  other 
lovers  of  pure  English  who  have  considered  that 
the  reverend  grammarian  has  in  some  way 
defiled  the  pure  well  of  English. 

Sitting  down  with  the  book,  *  and  tho 
volume  of  '•Good  Words''  for  18G3  before 
us,  we  note  no  great  difference  until  we 
come  to  the  following  expression :  "  The  Queen 
"is  of  course  no  more  the  proprietor  of  the 
"  English  language  than  you  or  /" — (see  '  Good 
'  Wo7'ds '),  but  in  the  volume  we  have  "  than  any 
"  of  us."  Why  this  change  ?  On  page  152  of 
the  book  we  read :  "  What  arc  we  to  think  of 
"  the  question,  whether  '  than'  does  or  does  not 
"govern  an  accusative  case?  'than  I':  'than 
"  me':  which  is  right?  My  readers  will  probably 
"  answer  without  hesitation,  the  former.  But 
"  is  the  latter  so  certainly  wrong  ?  We  are 
"  accustomed  to  hear  it  stigmatized  as  heing  so  ; 
"  dut,  I  thinJh,  erroneously.  Milton  writes, 
"  ''Paradise  Lost,^  ii,  299, — 

"  '  "Which  when  Beelzebub  perceived,  t?ian  whom^ 
Satan  except,  none  higher  sat.' 

"  And  thus  every  one  of  us  would  speak  :  '  than 
"  '  who ',  would  be  intolerable.  And  this  seems  to 
"  settle  the  question." 

So  the  Dean  thinks.  We,  however,  do 
not.  Poetry  is  not  often  considered  a  high 
authority  on  matters  of  grammatical  construc- 
tion, although  the  Dean  seems  to  think  it  should 

*  Second  Edition. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  16  Y 

be,  since  this  is  the  only  instance  of  "than" 
governing  the  accusative  that  he  deigns  to 
cite :  besides,  it  is  evident  that  in  many  cases,  the 
employment  of  the  accusative  instead  of  the 
nominative,  gives  to  the  sentence  another  mean- 
ing, thus : 

1  He  likes  you  better  than  me. 

2  He  likes  you  better -than  I. 

Surely  it  is  manifest  to  everybody  that  the 
first  form  means  that  he  likes  you  better  than 
(he  likes)  me,  and  that  the  latter  means,  he  likes 
you  better  than  I  (like  you) ;  and  yet  our  Dean 
in  an  authoritative  manner  says,  that  you  may 
say  either  "  than  /",  or  "  tJian  m6^\  but  that  the 
former  should  be  used  only  when  solemnity  is 
required,  as  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I." 

Is  solemnity  required  when  mention  is  made 
of  the  Queen  in  regard  to  her  proprietorship  of 
the  English  language  ?  We  trow  not.  Why, 
then,  does  our  Dean  lay  down  a  rule,  and  break 
it  on  the  first  page  of  his  Essays  ?  This  reflec- 
tion seems  to  have  occurred  to  the  mind  of  the 
author,  who  probably  in  his  reprint  weighed 
with  care  every  expression  he  made  use  of 
This  at  any  rate  seems  the  only  reason  why  he 
should  alter  ^'■than  /"  to  "any  one  of  us,"  and 
thus  screen  himself  under  an  expression  which 
fits  either  rule. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  short  time  and  note  what 
some  authorities  write  about  this  conjunction. 
Lowth  is  of  opinion  that  such  forms  as  "  thou 
"  art  wiser  than  me  "  are  bad  grammar.  Mr.  E. 
F.  Graham,  in  his  excellent  book  on  English 


168  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

Style,  quotes  the  objective  case  after  "  than  "  as 
a  downright  grammatical  error,  M'hilst  our  old 
friend  Lindley  Murray  devotes  a  page  and  a  half 
to  the  discussion  of  this  question,  and,  after 
citing  the  lines  of  Milton  just  quoted,  concludes 
his  notice  by  saying,  "The  phrased Aa?^  ichom, 
"  is,  however,  avoided  by  the  best  modern 
"  writers  ".  The  crowning  point  of  all,  however, 
is  that  the  very  author  whom  Dean  Alford 
quotes  in  support  of  his  theory,  says  in  the 
first  book  of  '  Paradise  Lost ' ; — 

*'  What  matter  where,  if  I  be  still  the  same, 
And  what  I  should  be,  all  but  less  than  he?  " 

Near  the  end  of  a  paragraph  in  the  first 
Essay  occurs  the  following  sentence,  which  is 
omitted  in  the  book  : — "  And  I  really  don't  wish 
"  to  be  dull ;  so  please,  dear  reader,  to  try  and 
"  not  think  me  so." 

It  was  W'ise,  indeed,  on  the  Dean's  part,  to 
omit  this  sentence  in  his  book,  for  probably  it 
contains  the  worst  mistake  he  has  made.  Try 
and  think,  indeed !  Try  to  think,  we  can 
understand.  Fancy  saying  "  the  dear  reader 
"  tries  and  tJiinlcs  me  so " ;  for,  mind,  a  con- 
junction is  used  only  to  connect  words,  and  can 
govern  no  case  at  all.  However,  as  the  Dean 
has  not  allowed  this  to  appear  in  his  book,  we 
refrain  from  alluding  further  to  it. 

As  the  Dean  admits  that  his  notes  are  for 
the  most  part  insulated  and  unconnected,  we 
presume  that  we  need  make  no  apology  if  our 
critical  remarks  happen  to  partake  of  the  same 


OPINIONS   OF  THE  PRESS.  169 

character ;  for,  the  reader  will  easily  understand 
that  criticism  on  unconnected  topics  must  itself 
also  be  unconnected. 

Who  does  not  recollect  with  pleasure  those 
dear  old  ladies,  Sairah  Gamp  and  Betsey  Prig  V 
"  Which,  altering  the  name  to  Sairah  Gamp,  l 
"  drink,"  said  Mrs.  Prig. 

"As  I  write  these  lines,  which  I  do  while 
"  waiting  in  a  refreshment  room  at  Reading 
"  between  a  Great  Western  and  a  South  Eastern 
"  train,"  says  the  Dean.  The  time  when,  and  the 
place  where,  great  men  have  written  their  books 
is  always  interesting  information,  and  we  thank 
Dean  Alford  for  telling  us  where  he  wrote  thi.s 
elegant  sentence  ;  but  fancy,  what  a  very  small 
refreshment  room  there  must  be  at  Reading,  if 
it  stands  between  two  trains.  May  we  venture 
to  suggest  that  the  sentence  would  have  been 
improved  if  "which  I  do",  and  the  words  from 
"between"  to  "train,"  had  been  altogether 
omitted.  "  Which  you  are  right,  my  dear," 
says  Mrs.  Harris. 

On  page  67  the  Dean  comes  to  that  which  he 
says  must  form  a  2y'>'inci2}al  part  of  his  little 
work.  The  principal  part  means,  we  believe, 
more  than  half  of  anything,  but  as  in  the  present 
work  there  are  evidently  two  principal  parts  (at 
least),  it  appears  that  the  volume  contains  more 
than  the  two  halves.  Perhaps  the  Dean  was 
waiting  between  two  trains  in  Ireland  when  ho 
penned  this  sentence. 

With  regard  to  the  demonstrative  pronouns, 
"  this  refers  to  the  nearest  person  or  thing,  and 


170  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

"  that  to  the  most  distant,"  says  Murray.  This, 
however,  is  not  Dean  Alford's  view  of  the 
matter. 

After  mentioning  the  name  Sophoenetus  (and 
no  other),  he  writes,  "  Every  clergyman  is,  or 
"  ought  to  be,  familiar  w^ith  his  Greek  Testa- 
"  ment ;  two  minutes  reference  to  that  will  show 
"him  how  every  one  of  these  names  ought 
"  to  be  pronounced." 

Who  is  right  here — Lindley  Murray  or  the 
Dean  of  Canterbury  ?  Stop  !  stop  !  Not  so  fast. 
In  theory,  the  Dean  agrees  with  our  gram- 
marian ;  for,  eleven  pages  further  on,  he  says, 
— "  '  this '  and  '  these '  refer  to  persons  and  things 
"  present,  or  under  immediate  consideration ; 
'■'■'■that^  and  ^those^  to  persons  and  things  not 
"  present,  nor  under  immediate  consideration ; 
"or  if  either  of  these,  one  degree  further  re- 
"  moved  than  the  others  of  which  are  used  '  this ' 
"and  '■these^''\  He  then  mentions  a  Scottish 
friend,  who  always  designates  the  book  which  he 
has  in  hand  as  "  that  hooh^^  Surely  this  Scotch- 
man and  the  Dean  belong  to  one  family. 

It  is  not  often  in  books  that  we  see  an  author 
plainly  contradict  himself  within  the  space  of 
sixteen  lines. 

On  page  183  we  read,  "I  should  speak  cor- 
"  rcctly  if  I  said,  '  Dr.  Johnson  Jleio  upon  me ' : 
"  incorrectly,  if  I  said,  '  he  fell  upon  me'." 

On  the  same  page  we  read — 

"And  as  to  my  correspondent's  last  dictum, 
"  that  'he  fell  upon  me',  would  be  incorrect ;  let 
"him  look  at  1  Kings  ii,  25,  34,  46,  in  which 
"  places  it  is  said  of  Adonijah,  Joab,  and  Shimei, 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  Ill 

"  respectively,  that  Bcnaiah,  the  son  of  Johoiada, 
"fell  upon  Mm  that  he  died." 

Now  in  all  these  actions  we  have  instances  of 
men  falling  upon  others.  How  happens  it  that 
what  is  right  in  one  case  is  wrong  in  the  other  ? 

We  now  come  with  much  pleasure  to  the  last 
fault  which  we  have  to  find  with  Dr.  Alford's 
book.  We  have  purposely  deferred  any  mention 
of  this  particular  subject  until  now,  on  the 
same  principle  as  that  which  actuated  the 
schoolboy  who  always  kept  the  best  till  the  last. 

On  page  280  we  read  the  following  excellent 
remarks  : — 

"Avoid,  likewise,  all  slang  words.  There  is 
"no  greater  nuisance  in  society  than  a  talker  of 
"  slang.  It  is  only  fit  (when  innocent,  which  it 
"  seldom  is)  for  raw  schoolboys  and  one-term 
"freshmen,  to  astonish  their  sisters  with." 

Of  course  after  expressing  himself  so  strongly 
on  this  point,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that,  in  a 
work  on  the  Queen^s  English^  Dean  Alford  will 
make  use  of  slang  terms.     Let  us  see. 

On  page  2,  he  tells  us,  "  He  bowls  along  it  with 
"ease  in  a  vehicle,  which  a  few  centuries  ago 
"would  have  been  broken  to  pieces  in  a  deep  rut, 
"  or  (would  have)  come  to  grief  in  a  bottomless 
"  swamp." 

In  the  original  notes  the  words  would  have 
were  omitted.  One  of  his  censors  then  sug- 
gested that  the  sentence  was  "  or  would  Jiaxe 
"  l>een  come  to  grief".  On  page  132  of  his  book, 
the  Dean  defends  his  elliptical  mode  of  spelling : 
but,  on  page  2,  by  altering  it,  he  tacitly  admits 
that  he  is  wrong. 


112  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

On  page  41  he  tells  us  about  some  people  who 
had  been  detained  by  a  tipple. 

On  page  178  we  are  told  that  the  Dean  and 
his  family  took  a  trap  from  the  inn. 

And,  on  page  154,  he  writes  to  Mr.  Moon,  "  If 
"  you  see  an  old  party  in  a  shovel,  that  will  be 
"  me".  Whereas,  on  page  245,  in  sneering  at  our 
journals  he  says,  a  man  in  them  is  a  party. 
Now  we  are  persuaded  that  no  newspaper 
writes  of  a  man  in  such  vulgar  language. 
This  style  seems  to  have  been  left  to  a  Dean 
when  writing  on  controversial  subjects. 


THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH  ^.  THE  QUEEN'S 
ENGLISH. 

A  Criticism  from  The  London  Review, 

July  80,  1864. 

A  WRITER  in  the  current  number  of  '  The  Edin- 
*■  hurgh  Beview '  censures  Mr.  Moon  for  hyper- 
critically  objecting  to  sentences  the  meaning  of 
which  is  perfectly  clear,  though  it  is  possible, 
having  regard  to  the  mere  construction,  to 
interpret  them  in  a  sense  ludicrously  false.  We 
think  that  Mr.  Moon  does  occasionally  exhibit 
an  excessive  particularity ;  but  many  of  his 
criticisms  on  Dr.  Alford  are,  as  the  reviewer 
himself  admits^  thoroughly  deserved.     Because 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  1 73 

certain  ambiguities  have  become  recognised 
forms  of  speech,  and  are  universally  understood 
in  the  correct  sense,  a  writer  is  not  entitled  to 
indulge  in  a  lax  mode  of  expression,  which  a 
little  trouble  would  have  rendered  unimpeach- 
able without  any  sacrifice  of  ease,  grace,  or 
naturalness.  The  reviewer  quotes  or  imagines 
two  sentences  to  which  no  reasonable  objection 
could  be  made,  though  the  construction  is 
assuredly  not  free  from  ambiguity : — "  Jack 
"  was  very  respectful  to  Tom,  and  always  took 
"  off  his  hat  when  he  met  him."  "  Jack  was  very 
*'  rude  to  Tom,  and  alw^ays  knocked  off  his  hat 
"  when  he  met  him."  Now,  as  a  mere  matter 
of  syntax,  it  might  be  doubtful  w^hether  Jack 
did  not  show  his  respect  to  Tom  by  taking  off 
Tom's  hat,  and  his  rudeness  by  knocking  off 
his  own ;  but  the  fault  is  hardly  a  fault  of 
construction — it  is  a  fault  inherent  in  the 
language  itself,  which  has  not  provided  for  a 
distinction  of  personal  pronouns.  The  sen- 
tences in  question  are  clearly  defective ;  but 
they  could  be  amended  only  by  an  excessive 
verbosity  and  tautology,  which  would  be  much 
more  objectionable ;  and,  at  any  rate,  they  are 
no  justification  of  those  errors  of  composition 
which  might  easily  he  amended,  and  which 
spring  from  the  writer'^s  oicn  indolence  or  care- 
lessness. The  confusion  of  personal  pronouns, 
however,  is  a  subject  worthy  of  comment.  It 
is  incidentally  alluded  to  by  a  writer  in  the  last 
number  of  ''The  Quarterly  Revieio\  in  an  article 
on  the  report  of  the  Public  School  Commission- 


174  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

ers  ;  and  a  ludicrous  example  is  given,  from  the 
evidence  of  a  Somersetshire  witness  in  a  case 
of  manslaughter,  though,  notwithstanding  the 
jumble,  the  sense  is  clear  enough.  The  fatal 
affray  was  thus  described  by  the  peasant : — 
"  He'd  a  stick,  and  he'd  a  stick,  and  he  licked 
"  he,  and  he  licked  he  ;  and  if  he'd  a  licked  he 
"  as  hard  as  he  licked  he,  he'd  a  killed  he,  and 
"not  he  he."  Now,  supposing  the  witness  not 
to  know  either  combatant,  one  does  not  see 
how  he  could  have  expressed  himself  more 
clearly,  and  he  would  have  a  right  to  charge 
the  defect  on  the  language.  Like  everything 
else  in  the  world,  human  speech  is  very  imper- 
fect, and  we  must  sometimes  take  it  with  all  its 
blemishes,  because  we  can  do  no  better.  For 
instance,  there  is  a  certain  form  of  expression 
which  involves  a  downright  impossibility,  but 
which  nevertheless  is  universally  accepted.  We 
cannot  explain  what  we  mean  more  pertinently 
than  by  referring  to  the  phrase  commonly  seen 
painted  on  dead  walls  and  palings  : — "  Stick  no 
"  bills."  Here  what  is  intended  is  a  prohibi- 
tion ;  but  it  really  takes  the  form  of  an 
injunction,  and  of  an  injunction  to  do  an  impos- 
sibility. We  are  not  told  to  refrain  from 
sticking  something,  or  anything — we  are  com- 
manded to  stick  something,  and  the  something 
we  are  to  stick  is  "no  bills " !  We  are  to 
stick  on  the  wall  or  paling  something  which 
has  no  existence.  Let  us  try  to  imagine  the 
process.  We  must  first  take  up  the  nonentity 
in  one  hand,  and  with  the  other  apply  paste  to 


OPimONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  im 

its  non-existent  back ;  we  are  then  to  hoist  it 
on  a  pole,  and  flatten  it  against  a  wall.  Of 
course,  the  only  correct  expression  would  be, 
"  Do  not  stick  bills " ;  yet  no  one  would 
seriously  recommend  the  change.  (The  reader 
will  observe  that  we  have  here  unconsciously 
fallen  into  the  same  mode  of  speech.  ^'-  No  one 
"  would  recommend  "  !)  The  received  expres- 
sion is  more  succinct,  and  it  has  now  the 
sanction  of  time.  In  like  manner  we  say,  "  He 
"  was  so  vexed  that  he  ate  no  dinner  ",  and  a 
hundred  other  phrases  of  the  same  character. 
But  they  are  radically  bad,  and  go  far  to  excuse 
the  uneducated  for  so  frequently  using  the 
double  negative.  The  unlettered  man  knows 
that  he  wants  to  state  the  negation  of  some- 
thing, and  not  the  affirmation,  and  he  obscurely 
perceives  that  a  species  of  affirmation  of  the 
very  thing  he  wants  to  deny  is  put  into  his 
mouth  by  such  a  sentence  as,  "  He  ate  no 
"  dinner "  ;  so  he  whips  in  another  negative, 
and  really  makes  the  phrase  more  intelligible 
to  himself,  and  to  those  of  his  own  class  who 
hear  him. 

Some  comparatively  modern  modes  of  ex- 
pression, though  not  capable  of  defence,  have 
already  struck  their  roots  so  far  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  drag  them  up.  The  writer 
in  '  The  Edinburgh  Review^  when  condemning 
the  recent  use  of  the  word  "  supplement "  as  a 
verb,  says: — "So  infectious  has  it  become  that 
"it  has,  once  or  twice,  crept,  notwithstanding 
"  our    utmost    vigilance,    into    these    pages." 


176  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

Ludicrously  enough,  one  of  the  faults  pointed 
out  in  this  article  is  committed  in  another 
article  in  the  very  same  number.  The  reviewer 
of  Dr.  Alford  objects  (and  we  think  very  justly 
objects)  to  such  French-English  as — "  Bom  in 
"  1825,  our  hero  went  to  Eton  in  1837."  But 
in  the  article  on  Edward  Livingston  we  read — 
"Born  on  the  26th  of  May,  1T64,  he  was  in  his 
"  thirteenth  year  on  the  day  of  the  Declaration 
"of  Independence." 

Let  us  conclude  with  a  hope  that  Dean  Alford 
and  Mr.  Moon  have  by  this  time  made  up  their 
quarrel,  and  that  henceforth  they  will  unite 
their  forces  for  the  defence  of  '  The  Queen^s 
'  English  \ 


CRITICISM. 

An  Extkact  fkom  The  Saturday  Review. 

Just  two  hundred  years  ago,  according  to  Mr. 
Ilallam,  appeared  the  first  number  of  the  first 
review  ever  published.  Monday,  the  5th  of 
January,  1665,  was  the  birthday  of  the  '■Journal 
des  S^avans;^  and  the  enormous  development 
which  the  system  of  reviewing  has  received 
since  then,  is  sufficient  proof  of  its  utility.  Re- 
viewers were  at  first  simply  reporters ;  from 
being  reporters  they  soon  grew  by  a  natural 
process  into  judges,  and  from  judges  they 
became  legislators.     They  succeeded  in  laying 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS.  177 

down  canons  of  criticism  which  affected  the 
development  of  the  public  taste  ;  and  it  is  in 
this  capacity  that  they  have  been  accused,  by 
the  sentimental  school,  of  every  variety  of 
harshness  and  meanness.  The  existence  of  a 
vigorous  periodical  criticism  is  as  necessary  a 
sanitary  condition  of  modern  literature  as  the 
existence  of  good  ventilation  is  of  a  house.  The 
incidental  inconveniences  that  result  may  be 
compared  to  the  draughts  which  sometimes  kill 
off  invalids  in  over-ventilated  houses.  But  in 
literature  invalids  ought  to  be  killed  oflf.  They 
are,  indeed,  in  the  habit  of  complaining  during 
the  process,  and  weak-minded  persons  sometimes 
take  up  their  complaints,  and  rail  somewhat 
vaguely  against  the  evil  spirit  of  periodical 
criticism  generally.  The  ignorance  of  the 
Edinburgh  reviewers  who  said  that  Wordsworth 
was  dull  and  childish,  and  the  brutality  of  the 
assault  upon  Keats  in  the  Quarterly^  are  the 
staple  examples  of  late  years.  They  are  neither 
of  them  good  for  much.  Keats  was  not  really 
"  snuffed  out  by  an  article  "  :  and  Wordsworth 
would  have  been  none  the  worse  for  attending 
to  some  of  Jeffrey's  criticism.  If  he  had  known 
how  to  take  advice,  he  would  not  have  mixed 
with  some  noble  poetry  so  much  that  no  human 
being  ever  reads  except  from  a  sense  of  duty. 
In  fact,  Wordsworth,  whilst  hidden  in  a  region 
sheltered  from  critics,  produced  stuff  which,  as 
coming  from  a  true  poet,  is  the  best  proof  of  the 
necessity  of  the  critical  spur  to  keep  poets  up 
to  the  mark.     If  he  had  lived  in  London  instead 

1^ 


178  OPINIONS   OF  THE  PRESS. 

of  on  the  shores  of  Rydal,  the  '•''Solitary''''  and 
the  "  Wanderer''^  could  never  have  been  so 
pitilessly  prosy.  But,  without  examining  par- 
ticular cases,  the  general  accusation  seems  to 
us  to  be  childish.  Few  people,  however,  will 
contend  that  the  exposure  of  bad  taste  and 
writing  is  too  severe  habitually.  So  long  as 
there  is  an  unfailing  supply  of  absurdity,  its 
existence  seems  a  tolerable  proof  that  it  has  not 
been  laughed  at  sufficiently.  Though  you  bray 
a  fool  in  a  mortar,  we  are  told,  yet  will  not  his 
folly  depart  from  him ;  ,and  we  may  add,  what 
is  still  more  annoying,  the  braying  will  not  seem 
to  hurt  him.  He  will  be  just  as  happy  after  the 
operation  as  he  was  before.  The  person  against 
whom  the  attack  is  directed  is  therefore  the  last 
to  be  pitied.  The  present  system  of  criti- 
cism produces  merely  a  systematic  expression  of 
the  average  opinion  of  the  more  highly  educated 
classes.  It  is  the  embodiment,  in  a  fixed  form, 
of  the  floating  criticism  that  must  always 
permeate  society.  If  a  man  is  ever  to  publish 
anything  beyond  his  own  narrow  circle,  it  is  a 
great  blessing  to  him  to  have  a  court  ready  to 
express  the  common  judgment  promptly  and 
frankl}?-.  A  man  may  occasionally  exist  of  such 
delicate  constitution  that  he  cannot  bear  to  hear 
what  every  one  thinks  of  him — that  he  requires 
to  be  sheltered  from  every  rude  blast,  and 
reared  carefully  like  a  plant  in  a  hothouse.  The 
real  difference  which  the  present  plan  produces 
is,  that  he  gets  decisively  in  one  dose  the 
opinions  which  would  otherwise  come  strained 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS, 

and  filtered  to  him  through  a  number  of  different 
channels.  He  has  to  take  his  cold  bath  at  once, 
like  a  man,  instead  of  sneaking  into  it  by  degrees. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  effect  of  the  shock 
is  generally  healthy.  If  Keats  had  really  been 
slain  by  an  article,  it  would  perhaps  have  been 
as  well  that  he  should  take  his  poison  in  one 
dose,  instead  of  collecting  it  drop  by  drop.  A 
series  of  snubs  from  kind  friends  would  be  even 
more  depressing  to  most  men  than  one  public 
slap  in  the  face.  In  fact,  we  doubt  whether  any 
one  example  can  be  given  in  which  public 
criticism  can  really  be  shown  to  have  produced 
evils  that  would  not  have  arisen  equally  when 
each  man  was  his  own  critic. 

It  may  be  contended  that  criticism  establishes 
a  standard  of  taste  which  improves  the  inferior 
intellects,  but  is  a  check  to  the  most  energetic. 
Reviewing  is  thus  considered,  not  as  produc- 
ing individual  hardships,  but  as  a  visible  and 
outward  manifestation  of  a  force  which  imper- 
ceptibly tends  to  level  society  at  large.  To 
consider  this  question  would  involve  a  con- 
sideration of  the  merits  and  weaknesses  of  our 
civilization — a  subject  of  some  extent.  We  can 
only  state  our  impression  that  an  examination  of 
this  particular  case  would  go  to  prove  that  this 
general  complaint  is  capable  of  an  answer. 
We  should  find  that  the  estabHshment  of  an 
empire  of  public  opinion  is,  in  some  aspects, 
even  favourable  to  vigour  and  originality. 
However  that  may  be,  we  should  have  estab- 
lished sufficiently  the  claims  of  reviewers  to  the 


180  OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

gratitude  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind  in 
identifying  their  influence  with  what  are  called, 
rightly  or  wrongly,  the  most  progressive  ten- 
dencies of  the  9,ge.  An  historical  review  of 
their  achievements  in  past  times  would  finally 
confirm  their  rank  as  benefactors  of  mankind. 
A  list  of  the  follies  destroyed,  of  the  prejudices 
overcome,  and  of  the  original  power  brought 
out  in  different  journals,  from  the  days  of  the 
Journal  des  Sgavans  to  those  of  the  Quarterly 
and  Edinhurgfi  or  the  Revue  des  Deux  MondeSy 
would  be  a  record  of  all  the  great  improve- 
ments of  two  centuries. 


139   GRAND   STREET,  NEW-YORK, 

i%,  1866. 


THE  BOOK-LIST 

OF 

Alexaiistdee  Steahae   &  Co. 


New    Publications. 

HOW  TO  STUDY  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT; 

The  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
BY   HENRY   ALFORD,   D.D.,  DEAN   OF   CANTERBURY. 

Small  8vo,  $2. 


SIMPLE    TRUTH     FOR     EARNEST    MINDS. 

BY   NORMAN    MACLEOD,  D.D. 

In  small  Svo,  $1.50. 


THE   WORKMAN   AND   THE  FRANCHISE. 

CHAPTERS   FROM   ENGLISH   HISTORY   ON 

THE  REPRESENTATION  AND    EDUCATION    OF    THE 
PEOPLE. 

Lectures  Delivered  at  the  Working-Men's  College,  London. 

BY  FREDERICK  DENISON   MAURICE,  M.A. 

Demy  Svo,  $3. 


THEOLOGY  AND   LIFE. 

Sermons  Chiefly  on  Special  Occasions. 
BY  E.  H.  PLUMPTRE,  M.A.,  KING'S  COLLEGE,  LONDON. 

Small  Svo,  $2. 


ALEXANDER    STKAIIAN    &    CO.  S 


FAMILY  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  CHRISTIAN  YEAR, 

BY  HENRY  ALFORD,  D.D.,  DEAN  OF  CANTERBURY. 

Small  8vo  [771  the  Press. 


CITOYENNE  JACQUELINE: 

A  Woman's  Lot  in  the  Great  Frescu  Reyolctiou. 

BY    SARAH     TYTLER, 

Author  of  "  Papers  for  Thoughtful  Girls." 

Crown  8vo,  $2.50. 


•'  In  •  Citoyenne  Jacqueline '  we  are  transported 
wholly  and  at  once  to  tne  stransro  times  and  scenes 
of  a  country -place  in  France  in  tlie  summer  of  1792. 
By  a  minuteness  of  detail,  graphic  but  not  tedious, 
the  author  charms  us  immediately  into  keen  inter- 
est in  the  scenes  and  sympathy  with  the  characters 
of  the  tiory."— Fall  j\Iall  Gazette. 


"  It  is  a  story  that  not  only  interests  us  in  the 
perus.il,  but  tha't  interests  us  still  more  in  turning 
over  the  leaves  the  second  and  third  time  to  catch 
the  touches  which  we  had  missed  in  the  first  inter- 
est of  the  tale.  There  seems  to  us  real  genius  in 
the  book." — Spectator. 


DAYS    OF    YORE. 

BY  SARAH  TYTLER. 

2  Vols.  Crown  8vo. 


[In  the  Press. 


SIX    MONTHS  AMONG   THE   CHARITIES  OF   EUROPE. 

BY  JOHN  DE  LIEFDE. 

2  Vols.  Post  8vo,  with  44  Illustrations.     $6. 

"  Mr.  De  Liefde's  book  is  readable,  interestinp,  I  little  biographical  sketches,  and  conveys  a  general 
stimulating.      It  shows  how  moral  energy  will  |  idea  of  the^oVjects  and  j^lans  of  the  various  instltu- 


overcome  obstacles  that  seem  enormous,  how  faith 
enthusiasm  move  mountains.     It  has  pretty 


tions." — Fortnightly  Review. 


MILLAIS'S   ILLUSTRATIONS. 

A    COLLECTION    OF    DRAWINGS    ON    WOOD. 

By  John  Everett  Millais,  R.A 

4to,  $T.50. 


"  Foremost  among  the  illustrated  books  deserves 
to  be  named  Mr.  Millais's  '  Collected  Illustra- 
tions.' Tbey  are  works  oi  art  that  need  no  let*er- 
preM — no  coouueat;  they  speak  for  themselves, 


and  have  an  interest  by  themselves.  They  nearl| 
all  display  extraordinary  power,  and  some  of  then 
are  in  their  way  quite  perfect."— £,o7idon  Time$i 


LIST   OF   BOOKS. 


PROFESSOR  PLUMPTRE'S  TRANSLATION 

OF  THK 

TRAGEDIES     OF     SOPHOCLES. 

With  a  Biographical,  Essay. 

2  Vols.  Crown  8vo,  $5. 

*  Let  us  say  at  once  that  Professor  Plumptre  ha3  I  mrirkable  for  its  felicity  than  its  fidelity  ;  a  really 
not  only  surpassed  the  previous  translators,  but  readable  and  enjoyable  version  of  the  old  plays." — 
has  proauced  a  work  of  singular  merit,  not  less  re-  j  Fall  Mull  Gazette. 


LAZARUS,  AND  OTHER   POEMS. 

BY  E,  H.  PLUjNIPTRE,  M.A.,  KING'S  COLLEGE,  LONDON. 
Second  Edition.    Small  8vo,  $1.75. 


"  Out  of  a  whole  pile  of  religious  poetry,  original 
and  selected,  which  rises  lilie  a  castlo  before  us, 
only  one  volume  —  Mr.  Plumptre's  Poems  — de- 
mands that  particular  attention  which  is  duo  to 
merit  of  an  uncommon  order." — Guardian. 


"  Professor  Plumptre's  freshness  and  originality 
of  thought  in  treating  familiar  subjects  give  a  great 
charm  to  what  wo  may  term  hia  Biblical  Idyls." — 
Churchman. 


CHRIST    THE    LIGHT    OF    THE    WORLD. 

BY  C.  J.  VAUGIIAN,  D.D.,  VICAR  OF  DONCASTER. 

Small  Svo,  $1.50. 

PLAIN    WORDS    ON     CHRISTIAN    LIVING. 

BY  C.  J.  VAUGHAN,  D.D.,  VICAR  OF  DONCASTER. 

Fourth  Thousand,  Enlarged.     Small  Svo,  $1.50. 

"  There  is  a  self-controlled  abstinence  from  rho-  I  tho  reality  that  other  writers  sometimes  seek 
toric  in  Dr.  Vaughan's  sermons,  accompanied  by  a  through  a  strained  '  uuprofessionality '  of  tone." — 
power  and  freshness  of  thought,  which  gives  them  '  London  Guardian. 


SERMONS    AND    EXPOSITIONS. 

BY  THE  LATE  JOHN   ROBERTSON,   D.D.,   GLASGOW  CATHEDRAL. 

1  Vol.  Post  Svo,  $3. 

^..  ^v....^. ......  „„,.  ..w.  „  — r o  .—     -lual.    Let  it  be  added  that  a  more  genial,  kindljr, 

Scotch  clergy ;  for  manly  grasp  of  mind,  for  pith     liberal-minded,  and  honest  man  never  walked  thu 


"  Dr.  Robertson  had  not  a  superior  among  the  i  equal.  Let  it  be  ail 
cotch  clergy ;  for  manly  grasp  of  mind,  for  pith  liberal-minded,  anc 
nd  point  in  "treating  his  siibject,  he  had  hardly  an  1  earth."— i^r«je>-'* 


and  point  in  "treating  his  siibject,  he  had  hardly  an  1  earth."— i^r«je>-'*  Magazine,  October,  1865. 


ALEXANDER  STRAHAN  &  CO.'s 


A    PLEA    FOR    THE    QUEEN'S    ENGLISH 

BY  HENBY  ALFORD,  D.D.,  DEAN  OF  CANTERBURY. 


New  Edition.     Small  Svo,  $1.75. 


"  A  volume  full  of  lively  remark,  amusing  anec- 
dote, and  BU<rgestive  hints  to  speakers  and  writers. 
The  Dean's  stray  notes  are  very  amusing,  tmd  very 
instructive,  too." — (luardian. 

"  There  are  very  few  persons,  even  among  those 
who  would  be  shocked  at  being  told  they  were  not 
well  educated,  who  might  not  read  these  lectures 
with  profit.  Every  person  who  truly  respects  him- 
self endeavors  to  perfect  his  mastery  over  his  mo- 
ther tongue.  Nevertheless,  vicious  "forms  of  speak- 
ing and  writing  abound  in  society  and  literature. 
Dean  Alford  has  collected  a  larger  number  of  these 
for  d!«criminating  censure  than  were  ever  before 


brought  together,  has  shown  in  what  respects  they 
offend,  and  explained  the  principles  on  which  bet- 
ter forma  of  expression  may  bo  constructed.  It  is 
of  some  importance  that  this  work  should  be  per- 
formed by  a  competent  author,  because  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  false  criticism  current.  Nonsense 
nowadays  can  not  be  content  to  be  itself;  it  puts 
on  serious  airs,  and  is  nothing  if  not  critical.  This 
volume  will  bo  useful,  because  it  will  give  the 
tlioughtful  reader  insight  into  the  spirit  of  thought 
which  determines  the  form  of  language." — Lon- 
don Vailj/  Ac iw. 


LETTERS    FROM   ABROAD. 

BY  HENRY  ALFORD,  D.D.,  DEAN  OP  CANTERBURY. 

Second  ICdition.     Crown  Svo,  $2.50. 

"Well  worn  as  is  the  subject  of  Italian  travel,  i  Genoa  to  Pisa,  is  a  very  charming  specimen  of 
Dr.  Alford  has  managed  to  produce  a  work  of  great  |  easy,  unaffected,  yet  picturesque  writing.  Of  the 
freshness.  ...  He  is  aided  by  his  really  remark-  {^)re"sent  state  of  Home  and  of  religion  there,  Dr.  Al- 
able  power  of  description  ;  and  his  first  letter,  de-  '  tord  jrives  a  striking  account,  and  not,  as  wo  b«- 
■cribmg  the  famous  coast-road  from  Nice  thruugh  |  liuve,  the  least  over-colored."— ii>ec<a<ti/-. 


MEDITATIONS: 

In  Advknt,  on  Creation,  on  Providenck. 
BY   HENRY   -\LFORD,   D.D.,   DEAN   OF   CANTERBURY. 

Small  Svo,  $1.25. 


THE    POETICAL    WORKS    OF    HENRY    ALFORD, 

DEAN   OF  CANTERBURY. 

Fourtli  Edition,  Enlarged.    Small  Svo,  $2. 


THE  DEAN'S   ENGLISH. 

A  Criticism  on  the  Dean  of  Cantisrbury's  Essays  on  "  The  Queen's  Engush.' 

BY  G.  WASHINGTON  MOON, 

Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Literature. 

Small  Svo,  $1.75. 


LIST   OF   BOOKS. 


MAN    AND    THE    GOSPEL. 

BY  THOMAS  GUTHRIE,  D.D., 

Author  of  "  The  Gospel  in  Ezekiel,"  Etc. 
Sixth  Thousand.     Crown  8vo,   $2. 


"  Tills  volume  exhibits  very  forcibly  tho  charac- 
teristics of  Dr.  Guthrie'3  mind.  There  ia  a  broad 
and  simple  and  faithful  enunciation  of  gospel  truth, 
an  ardent  and  atlectionate  earnestness  of  expostula- 
tion, a  wide  and  generous  sympathy  with  good  men 
and  good  deeds  wherever  they  are  found,  and  a  fe- 
licitoua  and  most  exuberant  How  of  choice  and 


accurate  illustration  of  the  subject  In  hand." — 
Weekly  Reviem. 

"  In  point  of  striking  thought,  as  well  as  appo- 
Bite  and  beautiful  illustration,  this  work  will  bear 
comparison  with  any  which  bears  Dr.  Guthrie's 
name." — Edinburgh  Cowant. 


SPEAKING    TO    THE    HEART. 

BY  THOMAS  GUTHRIE,  D.D. 
Crown  8vo,  $1.50  ;  extra  gilt,  $2 ;  pocket  edition,  75  cents. 


"  Dr.  Guthrie  never  speaks  without  speaking  to  I  They  glow,  they  sparkle,  thev  burn  with  Intense 
the  heart ,  but  these  pages  bear  with  unwonted  feeling.  We  have  seldom  looked  into  a  more  faa- 
vividness  the  impress  01  lus  great  emotional  nature.  I  ciuating  book," — English  Churchman, 


In  one  handsome  volume  of  nearly  a  thousand  pages,  and  with  upwards  of  a  hun- 
dred beautiful  wood  engravings ;  price,  $4, 

THE  FIRST  VOLUME 


THE    SUNDAY    MAGAZINE 

Edited  bt  Thomas  Guthrie,  D.D., 
Author  of  "  The  Gospel  in   Ezekiel." 


s 


The  volume  forms  a  complete  book,  and  contains  the  following  important  contri- 
butions : 

AUL,  FIRST  KING  OF  ISRAEL.    In  Nine  Chapters.    By  William  Hanna,  D.D. 
Author  of  the  "  Life  of  Dr.  Chalmers." 
"DLAISE  PASCAL.     In  Three  Parts.     By  W.  Lindsay  Alexander,  D.D. 

KATE,  THE  GRANDMOTHER  ;  or,  The  True  Way  out  of  Trouble.    In  Twenty- 
four  Chapters.     By  Jeremiah  Gotthelf. 
QKETCHES  OF  THE  COWGATE.    Six  Papers.     By  Dr.  Guthrie,  Editor. 

rpiIEOLOGY  FOR  THE  PEOPLE.  Eight  Papers.  By  the  Rev.  John  Cairns,  D.D.  : 
.1       Rev.  J.  H.  RiGG,  M.A. ;  Professor  David  Brown  ;  and  Professor  Islav  Burns, 

rpHE  FAMILY  LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ABRAHAM.  In  Two  Parts.  By 
JL     J.  R.  Macduff,  D.D.,  Author  of  "  The  Morning  and  Night  Watches,"  etc. 

JOSHUA  TAYLOR'S  PASSION.     A  Story  in  Eighteen  Chapters.     By  the  Author 
of  "The  Pastor  of  Gegenburg." 


ALEXANDER    STRAIIAN    &    CO.'S 


THE    ANGELS'   SONG. 

BY  THOMAS  GUTHRIE,  D.D, 

Uniform  with   "  The  Pathway  of  Promise.' 

Cloth  antique,  75  cents. 


THE    PARABLES    OF    OUR    LORD. 

BY  THOMAS  GUTHRIE,  D.D. 
With  Illustration  by  John  Everett  Millais,  R.A, 

Square  Svo,  extra  cloth  gilt,  $2.50. 
***  A  Second  Series  is  in  preparation,  uniform. 


THE    FOUNDATIONS    OF    OUR     FAITH  ; 

Ten  Papers. 

BY  PROFESSORS  AUBERLEN,  GESS,  AND  OTHERS. 

New  Edition,  crown  Svo,  $2.50. 

Contents. 
Introduction.     By  Professor  Riggesbach. 


WuAT  IS  Faitu?    By  Professor  Riggen- 

bach. 
Nature  of  God.     By  Wolfgang  Friedrich 


The  Resurrection  and  Ascension  op 
Jesus  Christ.  By  Professor  Auber« 
len. 


Gess.  I  The    Holy    Spirit  and   the    Christian 

Sin  ;  Its  Nature  and  Consbquencks.    By  j         Church.    By  S.  Preiswerk. 

Ernest  Stahelin.  '■  The  Doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith. 

The  Old  Testament  Dispensation  and  '         By  Dr.  Immanuel  Stockmeyer. 

the  Heathen  World.    By  Professor  ,  The  Fcturk.     By  Ernest  Stahelin. 

Auberlen.  Part  I.    The    Immortality    of    thb 

The  Person  of  Jesus  Christ.     By  Pro-  j  Soul. 

fessor  Riggenbach.  j  Part  II.  Eternal  Life. 

Christ's  Atonement  for  Sin.     By  Wolf-  i 

gang  Friedrich  Gess.  i 

"We  know  nothing  that  can  compare  with   (his  wori  for  completeness,  wisdom,  and  power." — 
Nonconforviist. 


PRAYING    AND   WORKING. 

Y    THE    REY.    W.    FLEMING    STEVENSON. 
Crown  Svo,  $1.50.    Pocket  edition,  price  $1. 


"  The  Bishop  of  Argj-U  be^  to  inform  Mr. 
Strahan  that  he  thinks'  so  liighly  of  the  book, 
*  Prayinji:  and  Working,'  that  he  intends  presenting 
each  of  his  clergy  with  a  copy.  The  Bishop  would 
like  to  see  this  work  largely  circulated  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  as  he  is  persuaded  that  much  good  would 
result." 

"  Since  Dr.  Guthrie  published   his  celebrated 


'  Pleas  for  Ragged  Schools,'  no  book  has  appeared 
whicli  is  so  calculated  to  touch  and  quicken  the 
public  TamA."— Caledonian  Mercury. 

"  Mr.  Stevenson's  book  comes  to  us  at  a  period 
of  suffering  to  thousands— of  anxiety  and  sutfering 
to  all.  It  will  prove  a  source  of  strength  to  the 
active,  and  an  incentive  to  the  indolent." — Man- 
cluiter  Examiner. 


LIST    OF   BOOKS. 


THE  COLLECTED  WRITINGS  OF  EDWARD  IRVING. 

EDITED  BY  HIS  NEPHEW,  THE  REV.  G.  CARLYLE,  M.A. 

5  Vols,  demy  8vo,  $20. 


"  Irving,  almost  alon<>  among  recent  men,  lived 
hi3  sermons  and  preached  his  life.  His  words, 
more  than  those  or  any  other  modern  speaker,  were 
'  life  passed  through  the  fire  of  thought.'  He  said 
out  his  inmost  heart,  and  this  it  is  that  makes  his 
writings  read  like  a  prolonged  and  ideal  biojf- 
raphy."— .JaiMrday  Review. 


"  Edward  Irving  had  the  power  of  reaching  the 
true  sublime,  and  the  English  language  can  show 
no  more  magnificent  specimens  of  religious  elo- 
quence than  those  which  are  contained  iu  his  col- 
lected writings."— London  Times. 


MISCELLANIES   FROM  THE  COLLECTED  WRITINGS   OF 
EDWARD  IRY!NG. 

Third  Thousand.     Post  8vo,  $2.50. 


"  It  is  by  such  a  volume  as  this,  we  are  inclined 
to  think,  that  Irving  will  come  to  be  widely  known 
to  general  readers.  There  are  passages  of  a  purely 
theological  character  which,  we  think,  display  pro- 
found wisdom,  and  are  models  of  clear,  strong- 
living  utterance.    They  are  practical  and  ethical 


'  sayings,'  that  are  as  gold  and  rubies  and  dia- 
monds. We  entirely  approve  the  principle  of  its 
compilation,  and  welcome  it  as  fitted,  in  a  very  re- 
markable manner,  to  (quicken  genuine  and  deep  re- 
ligious feeling,  and  to  impart  earnestness  and  fores 
to  the  religious  Uie."— Nonconformist. 


OUTLINES    OF    THEOLOGY. 

BY  ALEXANDER  VINET. 
Post  8yo,  $3.T5. 


OUTLINES  OF  PHILOSOPHY  AND  LITERATURE. 

BY  ALEXANDER  VINET. 


Post  Svo, 

"  These  volumes  are  of  great  merit  and  extreme 
interest.  The  editor,  M.  Astie,  has  done  his  work 
with  remarkable  skill,  and  has  succeeded  in  giving 
us  a  remarkable  embodiment  of  M.  Vlnet's  think- 
ing on  the  several  subjects  that  pass  under  review. 


....  Our  readers  will  find  in  these  volumes  a  rich 
vein  of  vigorous  thought,  extremely  suggestive,  and 
always  pervaded  by  a  devout  and  reverent  spirit." 
— Bricin/i  Quarterli/  Review. 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  THE  JEWS  : 

The  History,  Principles,  and  Bkarixgs  of  the  Questiox. 

BY  DAVID  BROWN,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Theology,  Aberdeen,  Author  of  "  The  Second  Ad-^ent.' 

Crown  Svo,  $2. 


ALEXANDER   STEAHAN   &   CO.  S 


WORKS  BY  NOEMAN  MACLEOD,  D.D. 

Sixteenth  Thou8and,  considerably  enlarged,  crown  Svo,  $1.50. 

THE    EARNEST    STUDENT: 

Being  Memohials  of  Johx  Mackintosh. 

"  Full  of  the  moat  instructive  materials  and  ad-  i  peruse  it  without  being  auickened  by  its  example 
mirably  compiled,  we  are  sure  that  a  career  of  un-  of  candor,  asaiduitv,  and  nappy  self-consecration." 
usual  popularity  await*  it ;  nor  can  any  student  I  —Excelsior. 


Thirty-third  Thousand,  crown  Svo,  25  cents. 

WEE  DAVtE: 

The  Story  of  a  Child's  Life. 


"  'Wee  Davie'  Is  a  tale  of  real  life,  simple  in 
style,  unexciting  in  incident,  plain  in  meaning,  but 
richly  imbued  with  that  charm  of  nature's  truth 
and  nature's  pathos  which  is  the  most  powerful  of 
literary  spells.  Readers  ought  to  acquaint  them- 
selves with  this  exquisite  little  story,"  —  The 
Dial. 


"  Fraught  with  the  truest  poetry,  rich  in  Divine 
philosopljy,  unapproachably  the  cnief  among  pro- 
ductions of  its  class — this  and  more  is  the  story  o/ 
<  Wee  Davie.'  "—Dublin  Warder. 


Tenth  Thousand,  crown  Svo,  $1.50. 

THE  OLD  LIEUTENANT  AND  HIS  SON. 


"  We  place  '  The  Old  Lieutenant  and  his  Son  ' 
In  the  very  first  rank  of  fiction.  It  contains  re- 
markable evidence  of  the  author's  groat  talent." — 
Daily  Aeiut. 


"  Beyond  any  book  that  we  know,  this  story  of 
Xorman  Mncleod's  will  tend  to  produce  manly 
kindness  and  manly  piety."— 'iT'te  Patriot. 


Tenth  Thousand,  crown  Svo,  $1.50. 

PARISH    PAPERS. 


"  There  is  nothing  narrow  in  sentiment,  tame  in 
thought,  or  prosy  in  style  in  these  papers.  Each 
paper  is  small  in  compass,  but  big  with  noble 
thoughts.  It  is  just  such  a  book  as  we  should  ex- 
pect from  an  author  whose  Christianity  is  that  of 


the  Gospels  rather  than  creeds  ;  whose  teaching  is 
that  of  a  Christ-loving  man  rather  than  that  of  a 
professional  preacher ;  and  whose  nature  is  royal 
and  not  menial  in  its  faculties  and  iustiuots.'"'— 
Tke  Homiliit. 


Eighth  Thousand,  fine  edition,  cloth,  gilt,  $1.50 ;   cheaper  edition,  $1. 

THE     GOLD    THR  EAD  : 

A  Story  for  the  Young. 
Illustrated  by  J.  D.  Watson,  Gourlay  Steele,  and  J.  Macwhirter, 

"This  is  one  of  the  prettiest  as  it  is  one  of  the  I  ture.    Wherever  there  are  children,  if  our  advice 
best  children's  books  in  the  language.     Dr.  Mac-     is  taken,  there  will  be  a  Gold  Tukead." — Cale- 
leod  is  great  as  a  preacher  and  writer,  but  he  is  no-     donian  Mercury, 
where  greater  than  in  the  field  of  nursery  litera-  1 


LIST   or    BOOKS. 


WORKS  BY  DOEA  GREENWELL. 


CHRISTINA,  AND  OTHER    POEMS. 

Nevr  edition,  in  small  Svo ;  price,  $1.75. 


"Here  la  a  poet  as  tme  as  George  Herbert  or 
Henry  Vaughan  or  our  own  Cowper.  With  no 
effort,  no  consciousness  of  any  end  but  that  of  utter- 
ing the  inmost  thoughts  and  desires  of  the  heart, 
they  flow  out  as  clear,  as  living,  as  gladdening  as 
the  wayside  well — coming  from  out  the  darkness  of 
the  central  depths,  filtered  into  purity  by  time  and 
travel.  The  waters  are  copious,  sometimes  to  over- 
flowing ;  but  they  are  always  limpid  and  unforced, 
singing  their  own  quiet  tune,  not  saddening,  though 
sometimes  sad,  and  their  darkness— not  that  of  ob- 
scurity, but  of  depth  —  like  that  of  the  deep  sea. 
We  advise  our  readers  to  possess  the  book,  auJ  get 


the  joy  and  the  surprise  of  so  much  real  thought 
and  feeling.  It  is  a  cardiphonia  set  to  music."— 
27ie  North  British  Review. 

"  Miss  Green  well  is  specially  endowed  as  av/riter 
of  sacred  poetry  ;  and  it  is  the  rarest  realm  of  all 
with  the  fewest  competitors  for  its  crown.  She 
seems  to  us  to  be  peculiarly  fitted  with  natural  gifta 
for  entering  into  tne  chambers  of  the  human  heart, 
and  to  be  spiritually  endowed  to  walk  there,  with 
a  brightening  influence,  cheering,  soothing,  exalting 
■with  words  of  comfort  and  looks  of  lore,  as  a  kind 
of  Florence  Nightingale  walking  the  liospital  of 
ailing  souls,"— 27te  Athenwum, 


THE    PATIENCE    OF    HOPE, 


New  edition,  in  small  Octavo  ;  price,  $1. 


*'  This  Is  the  most  thoughtful  and  suggestive  book 
of  our  day." — The  Witness. 

"  We  cannot  express  the  pleasure  with  vrhich  we 
have  read  this  exquisitely  written  book.  .  .  .  It  is 
conceived  in  the  spirit  of  a  meditative  philosophy, 


irradiated  through  and  through  by  the  golden  light 
of  Christian  feeling."— -r/i*  Netos  of  the  Churchet. 
"  A  work  of  singular  philosophic  power,  as  well 
as  poetic  beauty."— Fami/i/  Treaiuri/. 


A  PRESENT  HEAVEN. 

New  edition,  in  small  Octavo ;  price,  $1. 

"The  production  of  a  thoughtful,  cultivated,  j  beauty  the  present  priviletjes  of  the  believer. "— 
Christian  mind,  setting  forth  in  great  fulness  and  |  Baptitt  Magazine, 


TWO  FRIENDS. 

New  edition,  small  Octavo ;  price,  $1. 

"We  cannot  read  these  pages  without  seeing  I  earnest  mind." — London  Reviexa. 
that  they  are  the  production  of  a  thoughtful  and  J 


ESSAYS. 

BY  DORA   GREENWELL. 


[In  the  Press. 


10 


ALEXANDER   STRAHAN   &   CO/S 


CHRISTIAN   COMPANIONSHIP  FOR  RETIRED  HOURS. 

Antique,  Gilt,  $1.50. 


"  The  book  successfully  carries  out  the  object  i  pan: 
pointed  at  in  its  title,  and'wiU  prove  a  useful  com-  I  Edinburgh  Cuurant. 


for  the  Christian  In  hours  of  retirement."— 


THE  PATHWAY  OF  PROMISE. 


Preparation  for  the  Jour- 
ney. 
Promised  Blessings. 
The  Bow  in  the  Cloud. 
Duty  and  Interest. 
Guardianship. 
Jehovah. 


Contentment. 

Diligence. 

Dally  Strength. 

Progress. 

Assurance. 

Carefulness. 

Abiding  with  God. 


Gratitude. 

Prayer. 

Divine  Teaching. 

Fidelity. 

God's  Presence. 

Rest, 


Nintieth  Thousand.    82mo,  75  cents. 


ABLE  TO  SAVE  ; 

Or,  Encouragement  to  Patient  WArriNG, 


The  Chastening  Rod. 
Vain  is  the  Help  of  Man. 
The  Cry  of  Distress. 
Past  Joys. 
Submission. 
Thou  art  my  God. 


The  Remembrancer. 
Not  Forsaken. 
Be  not  Afraid. 
If  Need  Be. 
Heavier  Sorrows. 
Sunshine. 


Grace  Sufficient. 

If  the  Lord  Will. 

The  Swelling  of  Jordan. 

Bearing  Fruit. 

Christian  Joy. 

Contentment. 


Twentieth  Thousand.    Small  Svo,  $1. 


THE  THRONE  OF  GRACE. 


Gracious  Invitation. 
Answered  Prayer. 
Promised  Help. 
The  Mighty  Intercessor. 


The  Compassionate  High 

Priest. 
Help  and  Deliverance. 
More  Grace. 
A  Divine  Promise. 


Tenth  Thousand.    Small  Svo,  $1. 


Christian  Joy. 
Mutual  Prayer. 
Persevering  Prayer. 
A  Sacred  Pledge. 


THE    SUNDAY    EVENING    BOOK 

OP  PAPERS  FOR  FAMILY  READING,  BY 


James  Hamilton,  D.D.,  I 

Dean  Stanley, 

Rev.  Thomas  Binney,  | 

Tenth  Thousand.    82mo,  75  cents. 


Rev.  W.  M.  PuNCHON, 
John  Eadie,  D.D.,  LLD., 
J.  R.  Macduff,  D.D. 


I 


LIST    OF    BOOKS. 


11 


CONVERSION 


Illustuated    by    Examples    Recokdkd    xn    the    Biblk. 


BY  THE  REV.  ADOLPII  SAPIIIR,  Gueexwich. 


New  edition.     Small  8vo,  $1.50. 


"  Mr.  Saphir  has  a  quick  and  beautiful  apprecia- 
tion of  those  phases  of  life  and  thought  which  he 
undertakes  to  depict,  and,  in  a  style  which  is  mark- 
ed bv  much  simplicity  and  gracefulness,  displays 
the  themes  of  his  discourses.  The  volume  forms  a 
very  pleasant  and  hallowed  book  for  quiet  Sunday 
afternoons." — Christian  World. 

"  With  its  deep  insight,  its  glowing  tone  of  love 
and  gladness,  and  its  abundance  of  thought,  origin- 
al, wise,  and  beautiful,  this  is  a  rare  and  remark- 


able book.  Mr.  Saphir  is  a  '  householder  who 
bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and 
old ;'  and  whilst  he  secures  our  confidence  by  his 
loyalty  to  the  unchanging  verities,  he  deserves  our 
gratitude  for  many  new  and  happy  applications. 
Nor  do  we  know  many  books  where  so  much  schol- 
arship is  brought  to  bear  with  bo  little  ostentation, 
nor  many  books  adapted  to  so  wide  a  range  of  read- 
ers."— Jamks  Hamilton,  D,D.,  in  English  fret- 
byterian  Messenger, 


THE  WORDS  OF  THE  ANGELS  ; 

Or,  Their  Visits  to  the  Earth,  and  the  Messages  they  Belitesed. 
BY  RUDOLPH  STIER,  D.D.. 


Autiior  of  "  The  Words  of  the  Risen  Saviour.' 


Sixth  Thousand.     In  Crown  Svo,  cloth ;  price,  $1.50. 


"  This  work  is  one  which  will  be  read  with 
pleasure  and  profit  by  every  pious  person.  We 
have  ourselves  been  much  gratified  with  its  peru- 
sal."—TAe  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature. 

"  A  very  interesting  volume  by  one  of  the  most 
spiritual  and  suggestive  of  biblical  expositors.  It 
cannot  be  more  highly  praised  than  in  saying  that 
it  has  the  best  charactetistics  of  the  author's  uni- 


versally prized  work  on  '  The  Words  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.'  " — The  Nonconformist. 

"  ♦  The  Words  of  the  Angels '  is  full  of  just  and 
beautiful  thought.  Each  narrative  of  angelic  com- 
munication is  carefully  and  beautifully  expounded, 
and  its  meaning  and  lessons  pointed  out.  The  book 
is  one  with  which  every  devout  reader  will  bo 
charmed."— T/ic  ratriot. 


MY    MINISTERIAL    EXPERIENCES. 

BY  THE  REV.  DR.  BUCHSEL,  Berlin. 
Handsomely  printed  and  bound,  in  crown  Svo  ;  price,  $1.50. 


"  Dr.  Buchael  is  not  only  a  '  man  of  the  time,' 
but  one  of  the  men  who  are  for  all  time,  and  whom 
one  might  almost  be  excused  for  the  boldness  of 
rather  calling  men  of  eternity.  .  .  Had  we  a  friend 
with  a  spare  half  hour  we  scarcely  know  any  book 
that  we  could  put  into  his  hand  with  more  confi- 
dence, assured  that,  open  it  where  he  might,  he 
could  not  fail  to  alight  on  something  that  would 
make  the  half  hour  memorable."  —  Edinburgh 
Daily  Review. 

' '  This  is  an  interesting  volume.    It  contains  very 


interesting  accounts  of  the  German  Pietists,  amongst 
whom  Dr.  Buchsel  was  constantly  thrown,  and  who 
maintained  the  pure  Gospel  in  the  midst  of  abound 
inj5  rationalism.  The  book  is  written  in  an  enter- 
taming  style.  It  is  full  of  anecdotes  which  curi- 
ously illustrate  a  pastor's  life  in  Germany." — Lon- 
don Record. 

"  We  heartily  commend  this  little  book  as  alike 
full  of  the  interest  of  another  religious  life  than 
ours,  and  of  wise  and  holy  counsels  for  theirs  and 
ours  alike."— lionrfun  Patriot. 


12 


ALEXANDER    STRAHAN    &    CO.  S 


PERSONAL    NAMES    IN    THE     BIBLE. 

BY  THE  REV.  W.  F.  WILKINSON,  M.A. 

Vicar  of  St.  Werblrgii's,  Derby,  and  Joint-Editor  of  "  Webster  and  Wilkin- 
son's Grekk  Testament." 


New  Edition,  small  8vo,  $2.50. 


I.  On  the  Nature,  Origin,  and  Use  of 

Proper  Names. 
IT.  On  Surnames. 

III.  Names  of  God. 

IV.  Names  of  God,  (.Tehovah.) 

V.  Names  compounded  with  tiie  Names 
of  God,  (EI.) 
VI.  Names  compounded  with  the  Names 
of  God,  (Jehovah.) 

"  Thia  is  a  valuable  book  In  many  ways  ;  learn- 
ed, laborious,  ami  iiiterestinp; ;  full  "of  matter  in  a 
tiiiall  compoas,  which  will  bo  especially  acceptable 


VII.    Proper  Names  formed  from    the 

Names  of  Heathen  Deities. 
VIIT.  Birth  Names. 
IX.  Sacramental  Names. 
X.  Miscellaneous  Names. 
XI.  Heathen  Names. 
XII.  New  Testament  Names. 


to  the  clergy.    It  will  no  donbt  have,  as  it  fully  de- 
serves, a  large  circulation." — Union  Review. 


ROMANISM  AND   RATIONALISM   AS  OPPOSED  TO  PURE 
CHRISTIANITY. 

BY  JOHN  CAIRNS,  D.D. 
Crown  Svo,  cloth,  75  cents. 


THE  NEAR  AND  HEAVENLY  HORIZONS. 

BY  THE   COUNTESS   DE  GASPARIN. 


Twenty-eighth  Thousand.    Crown  Svo,  cloth  antique,  $1.50. 

The  pictures  of  nature  here  are   wondrous. 


"  This  is  R  charmin(»  book.  Madame  de  Gaspa- 
rin  has  the  touch  of  genius  which  has  the  strange 
frift  of  speaking  to  every  one  in  their  own  tongue." 
—Athenceum. 

"  '  The  Near  and  the  Heavenly  Horizons  '  is  a 
book  full  of  beauty  and  pathos." — Britith  Quar- 
terly Review. 


Th 


-A/ac. 


book  sjjeaks  to  the  hearts  of  us  all." 
millan't  Magazine. 

"  This  book  is  poetry  in  prose,  in  very  deed.  Wo 
have  seldom  met  with  a  more  delicious  volume. 
The  authoress  carries  a  perfect  witchery  in  her 
pen." — Londun  Quarterly  Review. 


HUMAN  SADNESS. 

BY  THE  COUNTESS  DE  GASPARIN. 

Author  of  "  The  Near  and  the  Heavenly  Horizons." 

Small  Svo,  $1.50. 

"  There  are  times  when  the  soul  eraves  an  utter-  |  done  so  in  beautiful  and  affecting  language.' 
ance  for  its  deeper  longings.    The  Countess  de  Gas-     London  Review. 
parin  has  given  expression  to  these  desires,  and  has  ' 


LIST   OP   BOOKS. 


lb 


WORKS  BY  HENEY  HOLBEACH. 


TANGLED    TALK 

An  Essayist's  IIolidat. 
BY   HENRY  HOLBEACH, 


Second  Edition.    Post  Svo,  $2.50. 


"  *  Tangled  Talk '  is  the  work  of  a  true  essayist. 
....  It  is  a  mosaic  of  suggestive  bits ;  or,  since 
mosaic  is  a  false  image,  let  us  say  it  is  a  skein  of 
bright  aad  broken  threads,  every  one  of  which  may 


readily  be  woven  into  the  reader's  own  thoughts, 
adding  color  and  strength  to  them  for  the  future." 
—Illustrated  Timet. 


Mr.  Matthew  Arnold, 
Mr  Alexander  Bain, 
Mr.  Thomas  Carlyle, 


HEiMP.Y   HOLBEACH: 

STUDENT  IN  LIFE  AND   PHILOSOPHY, 

A  Narrative  and  a  Discussion. 

With  Letters  to 

Mr.  Arthur  Helps, 

Mr.  Gr.  H.  Lewes, 

Ilev.  H.  L.  Mansel, 

AND   OTHERS. 

2  Vols,  post  8vo,  $5.50, 


Rev.  F.  D.  Maurice, 
Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill, 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Newman, 


"  Mr.  Holbeach's  volumes  have  remarkable  m«r- 
its,  nor  are  the  volumes,  like  so  many  books  of  the 
kind,  dull  and  wearisome.  The  writer  can  enliven 
his  subject,  and  possesses  some  quiet  humor." — 
/Ithevaum, 

''  TJie  author  seems  to  be  a  man  of  sweet  and  se- 
rious mind,  quick  to  be  moved  by  great  ideas,  and 


with  native  affinities  with  what  is  delicate  and  ei- 
quisite.  The  book  is  one  which  will  speak  pleas- 
antly to  the  cultivated  reader." — Pall  Mall  Ga- 
zette. 

*'  In  the  picture  of  the  obscure  Puritan  colony 
there  are  touches^  worthy  of  George  Eliot." — 
apectatur. 


LILLIPUT  LEVEE. 

A  Book  of  Rhymes  for  Children. 

BY  HENRY  HOLBEACH. 

With  Illustrations  by  J.  E.  Millais,  R.A.,  and  G.  J.  Pinwell.     $2 


"  A  rollicking  little  volume  of  children's  poems, 
which  will  be  a  prime  favorite  with  the  younf;. 
Add  to  this  that  Mr.  Millais  has  contributed  his 
illustrations,  and  that  the  others  by  Mr.  Pinwell 
are  good,  and  we  have  almost  said  enough  to  indi- 
cate the  attractions  of  this  charming  little  book. 
ITie  absurdities  will  take  wonderfully  with  the 
small  folk." — Churchman. 

"  '  Lilliput  Levee '  is  extremely  clever." — Lon- 
don Review. 


"  '  Lilliput  Levee '  will  cause  uproarious  laughter 
amongst  boys  and  girls.  Ludicrous  enough  is  tho 
story  of  Stalky  Jack,  a  little  boy,  who,  losing  his 
way  in  a  long  walk,  wandered  to  the  Giant's  coun- 
try, where  he  was  detained  a  prisoner  for  a  year 
and  a  day.  The  magnitude  of  the  land  of  Anakim 
so  disarranged  his  organs  of  sight,  that  on  his  re- 
turn home  ho  found  "all  natural  objects  too  small 
for  his  liking.  The  illustrations  ara  capital."-* 
Athenaeum. 


14  ALEXANDER   STKAIIAN    &    CO.'S 


WORKS  BY  EOBEKT  BUCHANAN. 

I. 
IDYLS  AND  LEGENDS  OF  INVERBURN. 

BY  ROBERT  BUCHANAN, 

Author  of  "  Undertones." 
Small  8vo,  $1.75. 

"  Ag  far  M  my  judgment  ^ncs,  this  is  prenuine  I  poetry  so  rich  in  tenderly  told  story,  beautifully 

poetry;  very  sweet  and  noble  in  its  feeling,  very  painted  picture,  and  abundant  spontaneous  music.'' 

true  and  simple  in  expression."— /'^rom  Article  on  — Illustrated  Times. 

Robert  Buchanan,  by  G.  H.  Lewes,  in  the  Fort  "A  volume  of  genuine  poetry  of  distinguished 

nightly  Review.  merit."— I'all  I\Iail  Gazette. 

"  We  do  not  call  to  mind  any  volume  of  modern  I 


UNDERTONES. 

BY    ROBERT    BUCHANAN. 
Second  Edition.    Revised  and  Enlarged.    Small  8vo,  $1.75. 

"  Poctrr,  and  of  a  noble  kind." — .-Ithencrum.       1  feelinjr— of  subtle  perception  of  beauty,  and 
"  The  ofwprinj^  of  a  true  poet's  heart  and  brain,     nious  expression.    — Daily  Newt. 
they  are  full  of  imagimktion,  fancy,  thought,  and  ' 


III. 

LONDON     POEMS. 

BY  ROBERT  BUCHANAN. 

Small  8vo.  [In  Preparation. 


THE  STORY  OF  DAVID  GRAY. 

BY  ROBERT  BUCHANAN. 

Author  of  "  Undertones."  [In  Preparation. 


■   A  New  Edition  on  Toned  Paper  is  now  ready  of 

WORDSWORTH'S  POEMS  FOR  THE  YOUNG. 

Illustrated  by  Macwhiktek  and  Pettie,  with  a  Vignette  by  Millais. 

Elegantly  bound,  in  square  crown  8vo,  cloth  gilt ;  price,  $2.50. 

Cheaper  edition,  $1.75. 


"  A  perfectly  charming  book  for  the  young." — 
The  Reader. 

"  One  of  the  prettiest  books  imaginable.  As  a 
present  for  the  young  it  can  scarcely  oe  surpassed." 
—  The  Morning  Journal. 


"  A  very  elegant  volume,  full  of  charming  wood- 
cuts. These  poems  are  for  the  better  momenta, 
the  quiet  hours  of  boys  and  girls.  The  illustra- 
tions are  full  of  cleverness,  sweetness,  and  truth." 
— Scotsjnan. 


LIST   OP   BOOKS. 


15 


THE   RECREATIONS  OF  A  COUNTRY  PARSON. 

Popular  Edition.    Crown  8vo,  $1.50 ;  extra  gilt,  $2. 

"  It  is  impossible  not  to  be  pleased  with  the  ■  wise  than  on  the  best  possible  terms  with  the  «u- 
'  Recreations  of  a  Country  Parson,'  or  to  feel  other-  I  thor." — Saturday  Review. 


THE    GRAVER    THOUGHTS    OF   A  COUNTRY    PARSON. 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  "  RECREATIONS  OP  A  COUNTRY  PARSON." 

Crown  Svo,  $1.50;  extra  gilt,  $2. 

''  This  volume  will  be  a  permanent  source  of  re-  •  spirit,  which  acts  as  a  tonic  to  mind  and  body."' 
rreation  and  refreshment.    There   is,  throu(fhout     English  Churchman. 
Uiese  papers,  a  genial,  cheering,  manly,  and  healthy  | 


COUNSEL  AND  COMFORT. 

Spoken  from  a  City  Pulpit. 

BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  "  RECREATIONS  OP  A  COUNTRY  PARSON,' 

Crown  Svo,  $1.50 ;  extra  gilt,  $2. 


"  Here  there  is  evident  heart-work— an  earnest- 
ness that  ought  ever  to  be  apparent  in  those  seek- 
ing to  guide,  counsel,  and  comfort.  We  have  pe- 
rused the  volume  with  pleasure,  and  so  commeud 


it  to  the  notice  of  our  readers,  certain  they  will  In- 
dorse our  opinion  as  to  its  merits." — Saturday 
Post. 


THE    JOURNAL    OF    EUGENIE    DE    GUERIN. 

EDITED  BY  M.  TREBUTIEN. 
Crown  Svo,  $1.75. 


"  It  is  a  remarkable  proof  of  the  impression  made 
in  France  by  this  book  that  the  prize  given  by  the 
French  Academy  was  awarded  to  it,  and  that  it  has 
gone  througli  ten  editions  in  less  thnn  two  years. 
....  We  nave  never  read  a  more  touching  record 
of  devoted  piety,  sisterly  affection,  and  '  love 
strong  as  death.'  Eugenie  de  Guerin  is  an  Anti- 
gone of  France  sublimed  and  ennobled  by  the 
Christian  faith.  Her  Journal  is  the  outpouring  of 
one  of  the  purest  and  most  saintly  minds  that  ever 
existed  upon  earth." — Rdinburgh  Review. 

"  ^Mademoiselle  de  Guerin's  Journal  was  soon 
after  her  death  printed  for  private  circulation.  On 
its  appearance,  M.  Sainte  Beuve,  the  first  of  living 
Frencn  critics,  welcomed  it  with  a  most  cordial  and 


appreciative  notice.  Other  writers,  both  French 
and  English,  did  the  same.  On  its  publication,  in 
a  slightly  altered  form,  at  the  earnest  request  of 
multitudes  of  her  admirers,  it  passed  through  eight 
editions  in  sixteen  months,  and  soon  had  its  placo 
in  French  literature  permanently  fixed  oy  the  fa- 
vorable decision  of  the  '  Academy ;'  since  then  it 
has  steadily  increased  in  popularity.  We  know  of 
nothing  in  modern  literature  more  cheering  in  its 
simplicity  and  tender  grace  than  this  record  of  the 
daily  life  within  and  about  this  old  chateau  in  Lan- 
guedoc,  and  this  unconscious  picture  of  the  noble 
and  devout  maideu  -wiiich  it  enshriues,"— i'rince- 
ton  Rtviexii, 


Uniform  with  "  The  Journal  of  Eugenie  De  Guerin," 

THE    LETTERS    OF    EUGENIE   DE    GUERIN. 

EDITED    BY    M.    TREBUTIEN. 
Crown  Svo.    [In  the  Press. 


16 


ALEXANDER   STRAHAN   &   CO.'S 


The  Ninth  Thousand  is  now  ready  of 

BEGINNING  LIFE  : 

Cbapteas  for  Tounq  Men  on  Religion,  Study,  ahd  Business. 

BY  JOHN  TULLOCH,  D.D.,  ST.  MARY'S  COLLEGE,  ST.  ANDREWS. 

Handsomely  printed  and  bound.    Crown  8vo ;  price,  $1.75. 


"  A  book  largelv  imbued  with  warm  religious  I  about  to  enter  on  the  battle  of  life."— TA«  Afor 
principle,  and  a  deep-toned,  out-spoken,  healthy     ing  Journal. 
charity.    "We  know  no  more  fitting  Dook  for  youths  I 


The  Eighth  Thousand  is  now  ready  of 

PAPERS    FOR    THOUGHTFUL  GIRLS. 

With  Sketches  of  some  Girls'  Lives. 

BY  SARAH  TYTLER. 

With  Illustrations  by  Millais. 

Crown  8yo,  cloth,  extra  gilt ;  price,  $2. 


"  One  of  the  most  charming  books  of  its  class  that 
we  have  ever  read.  It  is  even  superior  to  Miss  Mu- 
lock's  well-known  work,  '  A  Woman's  Thoughts 
mbout  Women.' ....  MIm  Tytler  has  produced  a 


work  which  will  be  popular  in  many  a  home  when 
her  name  has  become  among  her  own  friends  noth- 
ing more  than  a  memory." — 7%;  Morning  Herald. 


The  Third  Thousand  is  now  ready  of 

GOD'S  GLORY  IN  THE  HEAVENS. 

BY  WILLIAM  LEITCH,  D.D.,  PRINCIPAL  OP  QLTIEN'S  COLLEGE,  CANADA. 

Crown  8vo,  cloth,  extra.    With  Illustrations.    Price,  $2.50. 

We  cannot  conclude  our  notice  of  Dr.  Leitch's  I  est  and  most  ennobling  sentiments.    It  is  thus  that 

book  without  dwelling  upon  the  admirable  manner  I  booka  on  popular  science  should  ever  be  written." 

In  which  the  astronomical  facts  contained  in  it  are  — The  Header. 
blended  with  practical  observations  and  the  high-  I 


Elegant  Edition.     In  One  Volume,  $2. 

STUDIES    FOR    STORIES 


The  Cumbkrer. 

Mv  Great-Aunt's  Picture. 


FROM  GIRLS'  LIVES. 


Emily's  Ambition. 


Dr.  Deane's  Governess. 
The  Stolen  Treasure. 


"  Simple  in  style,  warm  with  human  affection, 
and  written  in  faultless  Englieh,  these  five  stories 
are  a  real  source  of  great  delight  for  all  who  can 
find  pleasure  in  really  good  works  of  prose  fiction." 
— Athenccum. 

"  Each  of  these  studies  is  a  drama  in  itself,  illus- 
trative of  the  operation  of  some  particular  passion- 


such  as  envy,  misplaced  ambition,  sentimentalism, 
indolence,  jealousy.  In  all  of  them  the  actors  are 
young  girls,  and  we  cannot  imagine  a  better  book 
Jbr  young  ladies." — Pall  Mall  Gazette. 

"  There  could  not  be  a  better  book  to  put  into  th« 
hands  of  young  ladies."— i'j'ec/a/or. 


LIST   OP    BOOKS. 


17 


A  YEAR  AT  THE  SHORE. 

BY  P.  H.  GOSSE,  F.R.S. 
With  86  Illustrations  by  the  Author.    Printed  in  Colors  by  Lkighton  Brothers. 

Crown  8vo,  $4. 
"  The  Tolume  before  ns  BUstains  Mr.  Gosse's  rep.  |  gravings  which  make  present,  indeed,  to  the  eyi 


utation,  both  as  an  obBerver  and  as  an  illustrator. 
It  is  a  truly  handsome  book,  and  we  know  not 
which  to  admire  the  most,  the  easy  and  felicitous 
style  in  which  the  writer  conveys  us  over  sands  and 
seaweeds,  into  creeks,  bays,  and  caverns,  making 
the  commonest  thing  almost  romantic  in  its  new  at- 
tire of  interest,  or  the  charming  and  life-like  en- 


what  description  had  before  made  very  distinct  to 
the  mind." — Eclectic  Review. 

"  A  delicious  book  deliciously  illustrated.  The 
study  of  natural  history  is  always  interesting,  and 
Mr.  Gosse  is  a  genial  and  enthusiastic  instructor." 
lUustrated  London  News. 


A    SUMMER    IN    SKYE. 

BY  ALEXANDER  SMITH. 
New  and  cheaper  edition,  with  colored  Frontispiece.     [7?i  tJie  Press. 


"  Mr.  Alexander  Smith  speaks  of  Boswell's  Jour- 
nal as  '  delicious  reading ;'  his  own  work,  though 
after  a  verv  different  fashion,  affords  delicious  read- 
ing also,  the  food  provided  is  unlike  that  provided 
by  the  guide-writer.  Here  you  will  gain  more  wis- 
dom than  knowledge,  more  suggestions^  than  facts, 
more  of  what  is  felicitous  in  expression  than  of 
what  is  precise  in  detail.  Mr.  Smith  can,  when  he 
pleases,  describe  Highland  life  and  Highland  sce- 
nery with  considerable  felicity,  but  he  likes  best  to 
relate  the  impression  made  upon  his  own  mind  by 
what  he  heard  or  saw.    His  egotism  is  never  offen- 


sive ;  it  is  often  very  charming.  If  the  traveller  is 
sometimes  lost  in  the  essayist,  who  will  not  prefer 
an  Elia  to  a  Pennant  S" — Daily  JS'ews. 

"There  is  in  this  work  so  much  excellent  writ- 
ing, good  thought,  and  picturesque  description,  that 
it  must  rank  among  the  very  best  books  of  the  sea- 
son. .  .  .  Since  the  great  Professor  Christopher 
North's  time,  there  has  been  no  greater  landscape- 
painter  in  words  than  Mr.  Smith  ;  and  the  '  Sum- 
mer in  Skye '  is  by  far  his  best  effort  in  this  branch 
of  literature,"— /nveme**  Courier, 


DREAMTHORP : 

A  Book  of  Essays  written  in  the  Cocntrt. 

BY  ALEXANDER  SMITH. 

Crown  Svo,  $1.50 ;  extra  gilt,  $2. 


"  A  cajjital  pocket  companion  to  carry  into  the 
many  quiet  Dreamthorps  of  our  native  land ;  a 
book  to  be  read  in  the  spirit  of  lazy  leisure  to  the 
sound  of  babbling  brooks  and  whispering  woods. 
It  is  exquisitely  printed,  handy,  handsome,  and 
cheap." — Athenaum. 


"  Mr.  Alexander  Smith  comes  to  tis  with  more 
natural  vitality,  with  a  culture  that  is  rarer,  and 
with  a  broader,  deeper  range  of  sympathy^  than 
any  one  who  has  attempted  essay-writing,  m  the 
proper  sense,  in  his  own  d!iy."—Noncon/ormut. 


THE  REGULAR  SWISS  ROUND. 

In  Three  Trips. 
BY  THE  REV.  HARRY  JONES,  M.A. 

With  Illustrations.     Small  Svo,  $1.75. 

"  Contains  much  valuable  information  for  the  in-  I  many  readers.    The  brisk  and  pointed  style  of  the 
emerienced  tourist."— Patriof.  book  will  give  pleasure  in  itself."— /'aH  Matt  Ga- 

"  Mr.  Jones's  book  will  no  doubt  find  and  please  '  zette. 


18  ALEXANDER   STEAHAN   &   CO.'s 

HEADS  AND  HANDS  IN  THE  WORLD  OF  LABOR. 

BY  W.  GARDEN  BLAIKIE,  D.D.,  F.R.S.E., 

Author  of  "  Better  Days  for  Working  People." 

Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 


"  I  hare  read  '  Heads  and  Ilanda  in  the  World  of 
Labor'  with  the  liveliest  interest.  Its  curious  and 
entertaining  details,  the  kindly  and  Christian  tone 
which  it  uses  both  to  masters  and  workers,  the  ex- 
amples which  it  holds  up  both  for  imitation  and 
warning,  the  sagacity  and  prudence  which  charac- 


terize its  practical  suErgostions,  and  the  eiceedlngrly 
attractive"  style  in  which  the  whole  is  set  forth, 
leave  nothing  to  be  desired  but  that  every  buyer 
and  seller  of  labor  in  the  country  had  a  copy  of  it, 
and  imbibed  its  spirit." — Extract  from  a  letter  of 
the  licv.  Dr.  Guthrie. 


BETTER  DAYS  FOR  WORKING  PEOPLE. 

BY  W.  GARDEN  BLAIKIP^,  D.D.,  F.R.S.E. 
Crown  Svo,  boards  ;  price,  T5  cents. 


"  I  lately  read  a  book  which  I  would  strongly 
recommend  to  your  attention.  It  is  an  excellent 
book,  on  every  part  of  the  working-man's  fortune 
and  labor,  andi  is  called  '  Better  Days  for  Working 
People.'   In  this  small  rolunie  I  find  the  best  rules 


on  ever^  thing  relating  to  the  working  man,  on 
every  thing  which  relates  to  the  improvement  of 
the  mind." — Lord  Brougham  at  Working  Men''* 
Meeting,  Edinbuigh,  October  9,  1863. 


ESSAYS   ON  WOMAN'S  WORK. 

BY  BESSIE  RAYNER  PARKES. 
Second   Edition.     Small  Svo,  $1.50. 
*'  Every  woman  ought  to  read  Miss  Parkes's  little  volume  on  '  Woman's  Work.' 


WOMAN'S  WORK  IN  THE  CHURCH  ; 

Being  Historical  Notes  on  Deaconesses  and  Sistekhoods. 
BY  JOHN  MALCOLM  LUDLOW. 

Small  Svo,  $2. 

"  We  recommend  this  work  to  the  careful  study  of  all  who  are  anxious  for  the  full  developmect  of 
church  work." — Clerical  Journal. 


OUR  INHERITANCE  IN  THE  GREAT  PYRAMID. 

BY  PROFESSOR  C.  PIAZZI   SMYTH,  F.R.SS.L.  a.sd   E., 
Astronomer  Royal  for  Scotland. 

Square  Svo,  with  Photograph  and  Plates.    Price  $4. 

"  We  recommend  this  verj- fascinating,  paradox-  I  venturous   theorizing."— I.oiirfon  Quarterly  Rf 
ical,  and  truly  Christian  book  to  all  lovers  of  gen-     view. 
uine  goodness,  of  stubborn  mathematics,  and  oi  ad-  ' 


LIST   OF   BOOKS. 


19 


DE    PROFUNDIS: 

A  Tale  of  the  Social  Deposits. 
BY   WILLIAM   GILBERT, 

Author  of  "  Shirley  Hall  Asylum,"  Etc. 
Crown  Svo,  $2. 


'  Mr.  Gilbert's  novel3  do  more  to  enlarge  the 
field  of  actual  experience  than  those  of  any  other 

writer  of  the  day De  Foe  and  Mr.  Gilbert 

alone  of  English  novelists  seem  to  give  the  ore  of 
English  life,  while  other  novelists  of  equal  power 

give  only  the  extracted  metal We  think 

*  De  Protundis '  the  most  powerful  of  Mr.  Gilbert's 
powerful  stories." — The  Spectator, 
i"  We  know  few  books  which  will  gi%'e  the  read- 
er so  true  an  idea  of  the  poor  of  London  as  this 
tale.  We  know  of  none  wnich  convey  that  infor- 
mation in  so  pleasing  a  form.  Long  acquaintance 
with  the  same  classes  as  those  from  which  Mr. 
Gilbert  has  selected  the  characters  who  pass  before 


the  reader  in  the  pages  of  this  novel  enables  us  to 
guarantee  the  fidelity  of  his  portraits  and  the  real- 
ity of  his  descriptions." — The  Churchman. 

'"  In  truth  nothing  is  more  rare  in  literature  than 
to  come  across  a  story-teller,  pure  and  simple. 
Such  a  writer  was  De  Foe,  such  a  writer  is  Mr. 

Gilbert '  De  Profundis  '  is  a  novel  of  verv 

exceptional  power,  full  of  dry,  calm  humor,  and, 
besides,  thoroughly  interesting  as  a  mere  tale.  .  .  . 
The  Newgate  Calendar  cannot  take  you  down  to 
lower  levels  than  Mr.  Gilbert  takes  you.  Words- 
worth rarely  lifts  you  to  higher  moods  than  you 
may  reach  if  you  surrender  yourself  to  his  simple 
truthfulness.''^— Pa//  Mall  Gazette. 


THE  MAGIC  MIRROR  : 

A  RouxD  OF  Tales  for  Old  and. Young. 

BY   WILLIAM  GILBERT. 
With  80  Illustrations.    Crown  Svo,  gilt,  $2. 

PLAIN  WORDS  ON   HEALTH : 

Five    Lay   Sermons. 

1.  The  Doctor— Our  Duties  to  Him.  I        3.  Children,  and  How  to  Guide  Them. 

2.  The  Doctor— His  Duties  to  Us.  |        4.  Health. 

5.  Medical  Odds  and  Ends. 

BY    JOHN    BROWN,    M.D., 

Author  of  "  Rab  and  His   Friends." 

Small  Svo  ;  paper  cover,  25  cents  ;  cloth,  50  cents. 


THE    POSTMAN'S    BAG. 

A  Stort-Book  for  Boys  and  Girls. 

BY  THE  REV.  J.  DE  LIEFDE,  London. 

■With  16  full-page  Illustrations,  in  square  Svo,  cloth,  gilt ;  price,  $1.50. 

"  John  de  Liefde  is  a  man  whom  to  know  la  to  [  little  stories,  and  we  are  sure  that  they  can  learn 
admire  and  love.    This  little  volume  is  like  Us     from  them  nothing  but  what  is  good." — London 
writer— simple,  artless,  and  Christian.    We  know     Reviexo. 
•everal  little  children  who  are  never  weary  of  these  I 


20  ALEXANDER   STEAHAX   &    CO.'s 

A  >  DUTCHMAN'S    DIFFICULTIES    WITH    THE    ENGLISH 
LANGUAGE. 

BY  JOHN  DE  LIEFDE. 

Author  of  "  Six  Months  Among  the  Charities  of  Europe." 

Paper  cover,  25  cents. 


LESSONS  FROM  A  SHOEMAKER'S  STOOL. 

BY  JOHN  KERR, 

Her  Majesty's  Inspector  of  Schools. 

Paper  cover,  25  cents. 


CAREY,  MARSHMAN,  AND  WARD. 

Thk  Serampork  Missionaries. 

BY    JOHN    CLARK    MARSHMAN. 

Popular  edition,  crown  Svo,  $1.50. 


DUCHESS  AGNES,  AND  OTHER  POEMS. 

BY    ISA    CRAIG. 

Small  Svo,  $1.75. 


BOOKS   PREPAEING. 
LIVES  OF  INDIAN   OFFICERS; 

FoRinNQ  A  Biographical  History  of  the  Civil  and  Military  Serviobs. 

BY  JOHN  W.    KAYE, 

Author  of  "  The  Life  of  Lord  Metcalf,"  etc. 

In  2  Yols.  demy  Svo. 


THE  REIGN  OF  LAW. 

ESSAYS  BY  THE  DUKE   OP  ARGYLL. 


LIST    OF   BOOKS.  21 


BOOKS  PREPAEING.-Continued. 
FAMILIAR  LECTURES  ON   SCIENTIFIC  SUBJECTS. 

BY  SIR  JOHN  F.   W.   HERSCHEL,  BART. 


REMINISCENCES  OF  A  HIGHLAND  PARISH. 

BY  NORMAN   MACLEOD,  D.D,, 
One  of  Her  Majesty's  Chaplains. 


DR.    AUSTEN'S    GUESTS. 

BY  WILLIAM  GILBERT, 


TRAVELS  IN   THE  SLAVONIC   PROVINCES    OF   TURKEY 
IN  EUROPE. 

BY  G.  MUIR  MACKENZIE  AND  A.  P.  IRBY. 


THE    PROSPECTS    AND    RESOURCES    OF    AMERICA. 

ASCKRTAINED  DURING  A  VISIT  TO  THE  StATKS  IN  THK  AUTUMN  OF  1865. 

BY  SIR  S.   MORTON  PETO, 
Member  of  the  British  House  of  Commons. 


HYMNS  AND  HYMN-WRITERS  OF  GERMANY. 

BY  REV.  W.  FLEMING  STEVENSON. 

MASTER    AND    SCHOLAR. 

Poems,  Original  and  Translated. 
BY  E.  H.  PLUMPTRE,  M.A.,  KING'S  COLLEGE. 

EASTWARD. 

BY  NORMAN  MACLEOD,  D.D., 
One  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Chaplains. 


22  ALEXAXDEE   STEAHAN    &    CO.'s 


BOOKS  PEEPAMNG.— Continued. 
THE    LIGHT    AND    LIFE    OF    MEN. 

BY  JOHN  YOUNG,  LL.D., 

Author  of  "  The  Christ  of  History,"  etc 


COSAS     DE    ESPANA; 

Or,  Spain  and  thk  Spaniards. 
By  the  Author  of  "  Flemish  Interiors." 


WEALTH    AND    WELFARE. 

BY  JEREMIAH   CxOTTHELP. 


MEN    AND    MONEY, 

BY  JEREMIAH   GOTTHELF. 


KATE    THE    GRANDMOTHER; 

Or,  the  True  Wat  out  of  Trouble. 
BY  JEREmAH  GOTTHELF. 


A    SECOND   SERIES    OF 

THE    PARABLES    OF    OUR    LORD. 

BY  TH03IAS  GUTHRIE,  D.D. 

THE  CHARACTERISTICS   OF   CHRIST'S  TEACHING. 

BY  C.   J.   VAUGHAN,  D.D., 

Vicar  of  Doncaster. 


LIST   OF   BOOKS.  23 


A  SSIALL  LIBRAET  FOR  PEESENTATIONS. 
STRAHAN'S    POPULAR    SERIES, 

COMPLETE  IN  TWELVE  VOLUMES. 

Uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  neat;  price,  ,$15. 

There  are  now  Twelve  Books  issued  in  this  Series.  They  form  a 
small  Library.  The  Works  being  all  of  general  and  enduring  interest, 
and  being  printed  and  bound  in  elegant  style,  it  is  believed  they  are 
well  suited  for  presentation  purposes,  and  the  Publishers  beg  leave  to 
recommend  them  accordingly. 

Tlie  folloioing  are  the  Titles  : 

1  npHE  RECREATIONS  OF   A  COUNTRY  PARSON.     Originally  published  in 

X     "  Eraser's  Magazine."    First  Series. 

2  "pARISH  PAPERS :  Personal,  Social,  and  Congregational.     By  Norman  Mac- 
Jl       leod,  D.D.,  of  the  Barony  Parish,  Glasgow. 

3  "0 RAYING  AND  WORKING  ;  Being  some  Account  of  what  some  Men  can  do 
.1.       when  in  Earnest.    By  William  Flkmisg  Stevensox. 

4  QPEAKING   TO   THE   HEART.     By  Thomas  Guthrie,  D.D.,  Author  of  "  j» 
O    Plea  for  Ragged  Schools,"  "  The  Gospel  in  Ezekiel,"  Etc. 

5  rpHE  GRAVER  THOUGHTS  OF  A  COUNTRY  PARSON.      By  the  Author  of 

JL     "  Recreations  of  a  Country  Parson." 

6  "ly/TY  MINISTERIAL  EXPERIENCES.     By  the  Rev  Dr.  Bcchsel,  Berlin. 

7  rpiIE  OLD  LIEUTENANT  AND  HIS  SON.     By  Norman  Macleod,  D.D.     Pop- 

JL     ular  Edition. 

8  ~r\REAMTHORP.     A  Book  of  Essays  written  in  the  Country.     By  Alexander 
A-J     Smith,  Author  of  "  A  Life  Drama,"  etc. 

9  r|"^HE  EARNEST  STUDENT  ;  Being  Memorials  of  John  Jlackintosh.     By  Nor- 

I,  MAN  Macleod,  D.D. 

10  /COUNSEL  AND  COMFORT.     Spoken  from  a  City  Pulpit.     By  the  Author  of 
V_y     "  Recreations  of  a  Country  Parson." 

11  /^AREY,   MARSHMAN,  AND  WARD,   THE   SERAMPORE   MISSIONARIES. 
\_J    By  John  Clark  Marshman. 

12  "T3EGINNING  LIFE.     Chapters  for  Young  Men  on  Religion,  Study,  and  Busi- 
X)    ness.    By  John  Tclloch,  D.D, 


THE   BOUND  VOLUMES   OF  GOOD  WORDS. 

There  are  now  Six  Volumes  published  of  "  Good  Words.'"  Each  Volume  forms  a 
complete  book,  no  paper  being  continued  from  one  volume  to  another. 

The  price  of  the  volumes  is  $3.75  each.  They  are  bound  in  extra  mauve  cloth, 
full  gilt,  and  illustrated,  and  form  suitable  reward  and  presentation  books. 

They  contain  the  following  among  many  other  important  contributions  . 

HEREWARD,  THE  LAST  OF  THE  ENGLISH.     A  New  Romance.     By  Charles 
KiXGSLET,  Author  of  "  Westward  Ho  !"    With  12  Illustrations. 

SWALD  CRAY  :  The  New  Three- Volume  Story.     By  Jlrs.  Henry  Wood,  Author 
of  "  East-Lj'nnc,"  Etc.,  with  Sir.  Walker's  Illustrations.    (57  Chapters.) 


o 


24  ALEXANDER   STRAHAN   &   CO.  S   LIST    OF   BOOKS. 


>LAIN  WORDS  ON  CHRISTIAN  LIVING.    By  C.  J.  Vaoqhan,  D.D.,  Vicar  of 
Doncaster.    (12  Papers.) 


PERSONAL  RECOLLECTIONS.     By  Isaac  Taylor,  Author  of  "  The  Natural  His- 
tory  of  Enthusiasm."    (12  Papers.) 

EVENINGS  WITH   WORKING   PEOPLE   IN   THE    BARONY   CHURCH.    By 
Norman  Macleod,  D.D.     (11  Papers.) 

YEAR  AT  THE  SHORE.     By  Phiup  Henry  Gosse,  F.R.S.    With  86  Illustra- 
tions by  the  Author.    (12  Papers.) ^_ 

THE   RELIGION    OF  LIFE.    Illustrated  and  Applied.     By  Thomas  Guthrie, 
P.P.,  Edinburgh.     (11  Papers.) 

ONTRIBUTIONS  to  POPULAR  SCIENCE,    By  Sir  John  Hkrschel,  Bart.    (8 
Papers.) 


A 


OP'S  GLORY  IN  THE  HEAVENS.     By  the  Rev.  Principal  Leitch.    With 
Illustrations.     (7  Papers.)  


G 

MISTRESS  AND  MAID  :  A  Household  Story.     By  the  Author  of  "  John  Halifax, 
Gentleman."    AV'ith  12  Illustrations  by  J.  E.  Millais.     (28  Chapters.) 

"rnSSAYS  FOR  SUNPAY  REAPING.    By  John  Cairo,  P.P.    (12  Papers.) 

AT  HOME  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES.     By  the  Rev.  William  Arnot,  Edinburgh. 
(52  Papers.) 

TmSSAYS.    By  A.  K  H.  B.,  Author  of  "  Recreations  of  a  Country  Parson."    (15 


O 


Papers.) 
UT  OF  HARNESS.    By  Thomas  Guthrie,  P.P.    (5  Papers.) 


STORIES.    ("  The  Widow's  Mite,"  "  The  Two  Generals,"  and  "  Malachi's  Cove.") 
By  Anthony  Trollope. 

CHRISTIAN   LIFE  IN   GERMANY  IN  THE    NINETEENTH   CENTURY.      By 
Rev.  W.  F.  Stevenson,  Publin.   (10  Papers.) 

T  AY  SERMONS.     By  the  Author  of  "  Rab  and  his  Friends."    (5  Papers.) 
TT^SSAYS  IN  SCIENCE.    By  Sir  Pavid  Brewster.    (6  Papers.) 


s 


HORT  PAPERS  FOR  THE  PAY.    By  Archbishop  Whately.     (14  Papers.) 


LIFE  SKETCHES.    (Our  Bob,  T.  T.  Fitzroy,  Aunt  Mary,  Wee  Pavie,  and  Joseph 
Walker.)    By  Norman  Macleod,  P.P.,  Editor. 

*♦*  As  showing  the  public  appreciation  of  these  Volumes,  the 
Publishers  may  state  that  82,000  of  them  (in  addition  to  the 
circulation  in  Monthly  Parts)  have  been  sold. 


Strahan  &  Co.'s  Publications  can  be  had  of  all  respectable  Book- 
sellers, or  mailed  free  on  receipt  of  published  prices,  by 

STRAHAN    &    CO., 

139  Grand  Street,  K"ew-Tork. 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

"f^f.M^r-f   ' 

niNi  01^55  Lli 

1 

. 

YA  003^-r 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


